Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Steel Products (Prices)

Mr. Snow: asked the Paymaster-General whether he is aware of the considerable discrepancy for certain steel material between export prices and prices charged United Kingdom customers, and that steel exports from this country are thereby being jeopardised; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I am informed that, generally speaking, discrepancies between internal and external prices are not considerable. If the hon. Member 'has it in mind that export prices are generally higher than internal prices and that exports are thereby being jeopardised, his information is not correct. The export prices obtainable for the products of the continuous strip mills have until recently tended to be rather above internal prices, but these mills are working close to maximum capacity, and exports have been rising.

Mr. Snow: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is extremely difficult to get up-to-date information about the prices ruling, other than through trade sources? Is he aware that, for instance, a few weeks ago a very large order by China for drum steel, which was not in any way infringing the strategic lists or anything of that sort, was lost to this country since the only competitive price available was £53 10s. a ton and the order went to the Continent for prices varying between £45 and £47 a ton? Is he further aware that this is a continuing situation which deserves urgent attention?

Sir I. Horobin: If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of any individual orders of that sort I will, of course, look into them.

Mr. Snow: asked the Paymaster-General, in view of the fact that steel producers in the United Kingdom are quoting the same export prices for certain lines, whether he is satisfied that export steel prices from the United Kingdom are subject to normal competitive variation; and if he will make a statement.

Sir I. Horobin: The Iron and Steel Board has the general duty of reviewing the export prices of iron and steel under competitive conditions and I am informed that the Board is broadly satisfied.

Mr. Snow: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by that reply that he is satisfied that there is competition in offering prices for steel? Is he aware that recently a circular was issued to six companies to furnish prices for export and that those six companies furnished the same price and the orders were lost?

Sir I Horobin: If there is evidence of any restrictive agreement of that sort it would have to be registered, but that is not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Strauss: If the facts quoted by my hon. Friend are correct, would not the Minister agree that while there may be good reason if there is no competition in price in meeting inland demand, if there is no competition in meeting export demand that is a very serious situation?

Sir I. Horobin: I have already said that if I am given particulars of any order I will look into it. Obviously, in a vast industry of this kind I cannot have the particulars of every transaction at my fingertips. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me I will look into the matter.

Padworth Petroleum Installation (Burst Pipeline)

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Paymaster-General if he is satisfied, in view of the recent pipeline burst at the Padworth petroleum installation and the subsequent pollution of the River Kennet, that proper inspection of the pipeline is carried out frequently enough; and what was the estimated life of the installation when it was constructed under Government auspices in 1941.

Sir I. Horobin: The life of older pipelines such as those near the River Kennet depends upon local geological conditions and the physical stresses to which they are subjected. They are inspected, serviced and replaced as conditions demand. When in actual use they are regularly patrolled. Although these arrangements have in general proved satisfactory, I am having them reviewed in the light of the incident referred to.

Sir A. Hurd: Does my hon. Friend recall that there have been earlier instances of leakages from this petroleum pipeline which have caused serious trouble locally? Can he tell me how often in recent years the pipeline has been tested, to whom reports were made, and whether any action has been taken by his Department on these reports?

Sir I. Horobin: These are agency arrangements, but if my hon. Friend will get in touch with me I may be able to give him the details for which he asks.

Fuel Resources (Research)

Mr. Willey: asked the Paymaster-General what Government-sponsored or Government-aided research organisations conduct research into the utilisation of United Kingdom fuel resources.

Sir I. Horobin: The British Coal Utilisation Research Association, the British Coke Research Association, the Electrical Research Association, the Coal Tar Research Association, and several universities.

Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the steps which have been taken recently are sufficient to secure the full co-ordination of these research activities?

Sir I. Horobin: I think so, yes.

Coal-fired Power Stations

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Pay master-General what general direction he has given to the Central Electricity Generating Board to close old coal-fired power stations.

Sir I. Horobin: None, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: If this does come about, will the Parliamentary Secretary support the refitting of old power stations, whereby efficiency could be increased considerably, and far above the efficiency of nuclear power stations?

Sir I. Horobin: I think that is a very wide question.

Oil Reserves

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General what period of supply the £6,002,600 stock of petroleum products mentioned in the Civil Supplementary Estimates is expected to cover.

Sir I. Horobin: This oil is an addition to the reserves which have long been held by the Government for use in an emergency. The period they cover will depend on the conditions obtaining at any time they may have to be called upon.

Mr. Palmer: Is it not a fact that this is bound to have a limited life, and, in these circumstances, does it not emphasise the folly of placing undue dependence on imported fuel?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that the one follows from the other at all. It may well be wise to use oil, and, if it is wise to use oil, it may be wise to have some of it in reserve.

Sir G. Nicholson: Has this money already been spent?

Sir I. Horobin: The Estimates have just been presented to Parliament. It has not yet all been spent, naturally.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General whether he will make a statement concerning contract arrangements for storage of the petroleum products reserves provided for in the Civil Supplementary Estimates of his Department.

Sir I. Horobin: The products in question will be stored in existing Government installations, managed by agent companies on a fee basis.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend make it abundantly clear that this is a strategic reserve and that it is not in any way, as has been suggested from the other side of the House, a subsidy to the oil companies?

Sir I. Horobin: Quite. We want all the oil we can pay for for storing in this country.

Iron and Steel Board (Mr. A. G. Stewart)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General what is the term of office of Mr. A. G. Stewart, a member of the Iron and Steel Board; and when that term of office expires.

Sir I. Horobin: Mr. Stewart was reappointed part-time member on 19th October, 1958, and his present term of office expires on 31st May, 1960.

Mr. Palmer: While not contesting the absolute right of Mr. Stewart as a private individual to express what opinions he likes on any subject, is it desirable that a member of the Iron and Steel Board should engage in any violent political controversy affecting the future of an industry for which the Board is responsible? Is it, not a fact also that it is the duty of the Board to serve the interests of all Governments, of all shades of political opinion, present and future?

Sir I. Horobin: That is rather what Mr. Stewart is doing. It is not his fault that violent controversy his arisen.

Mr. Strauss: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues take strong exception if a member of the Iron and Steel Board came out and demanded as an urgent necessity the renationalisation of the industry? Is it not an accepted principle by all Governments that members of Boards that control, fully or partially, any industry should refrain from taking a leading part in advocating changes in the status of any industry?

Sir I. Horobin: That is precisely what Mr. Stewart has been doing. It is hon. Members opposite who have been advocating the change. He is very satisfied with the work the Government put him there to do.

Mr. Strauss: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the main part of the question? What would be his comment if a member of the Iron and Steel Board came out and made a campaign in favour of the renationalisation of the Iron and Steel Industry? Would he say it was right?

Sir I. Horobin: Not if he were appointed to a board whose job it was to carry on an unnationalised industry.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Question is hypothetical.

Iron and Steel Industry (Closures)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General what notifications have been given by iron and steel producers to the Iron and Steel Board, over the last 12 months, of decisions to close down production facilities, as required by the Iron and Steel Act, 1953.

Sir I. Horobin: During 1958, the Iron and Steel Board was informed of proposals to close three blast furnace plants, four steel works, eleven sheet and tin-plate handmills, one iron ore mine, three iron foundries, a bar mill and a rod mill.

Mr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to let hon. Members have further details of these closures so that the House will be fully informed about what is really happening in the iron and steel industry?

Sir I. Horobin: I will consider that.

Nationalised Industries (Co-ordination)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Paymaster-General if the Minister of Power will call a conference of the heads of the coal, gas, and electricity undertakings to work out plans for closer co-operation.

Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir. My noble Friend is in constant touch with the nationalised industries on such matters.

Mr. Fitch: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the National Coal Board should be given some idea of the amount of coal which is likely to be required by the electricity and gas industries within the next five years, and does he not feel that it is essential that the heads of these industries should be called together from time to time to work out a co-ordinated fuel policy?

Sir I. Horobin: As I have said, my noble Friend is in constant touch with these gentlemen, who are in constant touch with one another, but it does not follow that all put together can discover how much coal will be used five years ahead; life would be very much simpler if we could.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: asked the Paymaster-General what machinery he has set up to co-ordinate the policies of the National Coal Board, the Electricity Board and the Gas Board.

Sir I. Horobin: The necessary machinery already exists in the form of the Ministry of Power.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the present arrangements? Does he not think that, in the interests of a balanced fuel policy, it is time to set up machinery to integrate and co-ordinate the policies of the three Departments?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that adding more machinery would help. Whatever the views of hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House, the Ministry of Power does its job. That is part of its responsibility. If it did not do it, it would not do it any better by having another bit of machinery.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that the Ministry of Power will carry out its undertakings and responsibilities in this matter?

Sir I. Horobin: Indeed, yes. We are constantly in touch with the heads of these three industries.

Mr. Nabarro: A jolly good Parliamentary Secretary.

Nuclear Power Stations

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General how many atomic power stations are now under construction and where; how many more are planned for commencement before 1965 and where; and what total capital cost and installed generating capacity is envisaged.

Sir I. Horobin: It is not expected that the nuclear power programme up till the end of 1966 will require more than 12–14 stations. Four of these are under, construction at Bradwell, Berkeley and Hinkley Point in England and at Hunterston in Scotland. Consent has been given for a further station at Trawsfynydd in Merioneth, and applications for consent to build stations at Dungeness in Kent and Sizewell in Suffolk have been submitted to my noble Friend.
The Electricity Authorities are looking for further sites for stations in the current programme, and I cannot say how many additional sites may be required before the end of 1965 for stations due to commission after 1966. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Appendix to the White Paper on Capital Investment in the coal, gas and electricity industries published in April, 1957.

Mr. Nabarro: Did my hon. Friend observe the demand made last week by the National Union of Mineworkers that two of these atomic power stations should be deferred indefinitely on account of the coal situation? Will my hon. Friend make it clear that it is the policy of his Department to resist these blandishments whether they come from King Canute or from King Coal?

Sir I. Horobin: That is the view of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Snow: Going back to the reply about the siting of these new nuclear power stations, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be kind enough to look at the correspondence between Sir Anthony Eden and myself on the deplorable case of the selection of the Bradwell site, and to assure himself that


there will be proper consultation with other Departments holding lands which may be suitable, but are no longer necessary to these Departments?

Sir I. Horobin: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I will look into the correspondence.

Coal and Oil (Consumption)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Paymaster-General what percentage of the total inland fuel consumption was met by coal, and by oil, respectively, in 1958.

Sir I. Horobin: 80 and 19.

Mr. Fitch: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in 1938 93 per cent, of the inland fuel consumption was met by coal and that this drop of 13 per cent. means, in actual tonnage, about 20 million to 25 million tons? In view of that, will he not urge his noble Friend to put speed on in his investigations into the uses of coal otherwise than for fuel?

Sir I. Horobin: A great deal of research is going on in this direction. About half the amount of oil concerned here is in uses for which coal is not competitive. We cannot, for instance, drive a Ferguson tractor on coal.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Mining Areas (New Industries)

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General, in view of the liklihood that further collieries will be closed, whether he will confer with other Government Departments with a view to the settlement of new industries in the areas affected.

Sir I. Horobin: My noble Friend will, of course, keep in close contact on the subject of pit closures with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has the primary responsibility for settling new industries in the areas affected.

Mr. Neal: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this belated conversion on the part of the Government will be welcomed by both sides of the House? May we take it that in future when any colliery closes this co-operation will take place between the respective Departments?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "belated". I cannot remember any period when it was not customary and necessary for the right hon. Gentlemen at the Board of Trade and at the Ministry of Power to keep in close touch on these matters.

National Coal Board (Non-industrial Staff)

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General, in view of the redundancy among coalminers, what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board to ensure a proportionate reduction of its officials and staff.

Sir I. Horobin: None, Sir. I am informed by the Board that it hopes to reduce its non-industrial staff by 5 per cent. in 1959.

Mr. Neal: Is it a fact that this reduction is to take place by means of a process of halting recruitment? If so, does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is much less painful than the peremptory dismissal of miners? Is he aware that already there is a reduction of 26,000 men in the industry? When can we expect to see the figures of the Coal Board staff commensurate with the manual workers?

Sir I. Horobin: I am bound to say that that is primarily a matter for the Coal Board itself. I would point out that in proportion the cuts are very much greater—indeed, something like ten times the cuts being made in the miners.

Mines Inspectorate

Mr. Robens: asked the Paymaster-General what is the authorised strength of the Mines Inpectorate; and what is the present number on the establishment.

Sir I. Horobin: The authorised strength of the Mines Inspectorate, including specialist grades, is 187, and the present number on the establishment is 147.

Mr. Robens: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the real trouble about the recruitment of mines inspectors?

Sir I. Horobin: I think that is too wide a question to enter into in a supplementary question and answer. Perhaps on a more suitable occasion in a debate we could go into it.

Mr. Robens: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is highly important in this industry, in which the Inspectorate is an important aspect of safety in mines, that the establishment should be fully up to strength? I wondered whether it was not possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to give some indication of the attempts that are being made to recruit the necessary staff?

Sir I. Horobin: The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that recruitment has been overtaking wastage recently and that, since the date of these figures, I understand that of the 40 there are five candidates who have been offered posts, which, if they accept, is a reduction of 12½ per cent.

Redundant Mineworkers (Pensions)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what general direction he has given to the National Coal Board to provide full pension rights to redundant mineworkers.

Sir I. Horobin: None, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: May I ask whether the noble Lord the Minister of Power entered the negotiations for dealing with redundancy in the coalfields?

Sir I. Horobin: The Minister is responsible only, in relation to pensions matters, when it comes to approving agreements made between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. It is for them in the first place.

Consumption

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General what diminution of domestic coal consumption occurred during the 12 months ended 31st January, 1959, compared with earlier years; what estimate of the reasons for this has been made by his Department; and to what extent this diminution is due to implementation of clean air policy.

Sir I. Horobin: Disposals to domestic consumers in the 12 months ended 31st January, 1959, were a million tons more than in the previous 12 months.

Mr. Nabarro: Does that Answer not dispel at once all the allegations made by representatives of the National Union of

Mineworkers opposite that deliberate discrimination is being indulged in by Her Majesty's Government against the coal industry? Has my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary directed his Answer particularly against the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) who made that preposterous suggestion?

Mr. T. Williams: Does not the Answer indicate that the rationing of coal was kept on for far too long?

Sir I. Horobin: I am very glad to have the view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, in this case at least, they are in favour of getting rid of rationing. The excess demand due to derationing plays only a very small part. It was an odd thing that the previous year was one of the warmest for a very long time while last year was one of the coldest. That has a great effect on the amount of coal people want. Therefore, to ask how much coal we shall need in five years' time is not a very helpful exercise.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that we are not at all concerned with the private war which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is carrying on against the National Union of Mine-workers and that we still say that discrimination is exercised under the Clean Air Act against mechanically-stoked furnaces and in favour of oil furnaces.

Mr. Nabarro: Nonsense.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Helicopters

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to coordinate the requirements of the Armed Forces for helicopters so as to avoid duplication and overlapping in production.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): New requirements for helicopters are formulated by means of close consultation between the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply. Development and production rests with the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. de Freitas: That is exactly the point. Since there are two different types of order for the Services, we are getting two different types of development. Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary at least say that he is aware of the danger of unnecessary duplication?

Mr. Taylor: I am indeed aware of that danger, but responsibility for consultation with the Service Departments rests with the initiating Department in the first place, while policy is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

Transport Aircraft

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply what consideration is being given to the need for an ultra-long-range military transport aircraft.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has already announced our intention to order the Short Britannic 3 as a strategic freighter for Transport Command.

Mr. Mason: As I specifically mentioned ultra-long-range transport in my Question, may I ask whether it is not time that the Ministry of Supply were applying its mind to this matter in view of the recurring difficulties we are having in areas where we have intermediate bases and where the danger is? If we want ultra-long-range aircraft, now is the time when something should be done about it?

Mr. Taylor: This factor and all other relevant factors were taken into account in arriving at the decision to order the Britannic, which meets the prospective needs of the Services in the long-range category. I have no knowledge of any new requirements.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister confirm that, while it is true that the Services are not agreed on any one aeroplane, they were all agreed that the Britannic 3 was one that they did not want?

Mr. Taylor: I cannot confirm that.

TSR2 Aircraft

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Supply by what combination of engine and airframe design the TSR2 is given the ability to operate from airfields of moderate length and light construction.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: High engine thrust coupled with advanced wing design and a special undercarriage will give the required ability to operate from small airfields of light construction.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that we should break down the unnecessary security screen around this aircraft so that overseas countries, who are potential customers, could realise the unique combination of design and skill in this aircraft which can do a very remarkable job indeed?

Mr. Taylor: I agree that security should not be allowed to obstruct to friends commercial possibilities, or indeed military possibilities, of an aircraft of this advanced design. The question of security for the Services is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. de Freitas: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that twice in the course of two Answers he has thrown responsibility back on the Service Departments? There may be a lot of truth in what he says, but surely he is responsible for the future of our aircraft industry and should take this matter up with the Service Departments?

Mr. Taylor: I certainly will. I shall do anything I can to give effect to what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, consistent with the needs of security generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Imported Foodstuffs (Radioactivity)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health what is the amount of food which has been condemned at the ports during the year 1958 because of radioactivity.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): So far as I am aware, none; imported food is not examined at the ports for radioactivity.

Mrs. Slater: In view of modern developments and the possibility that food may be contaminated by radioactivity, is it not time that the Ministry of Health looked at the problem of recording how much food contamination by radioactivity there has been?

Mr. Thompson: We are always having this matter under consideration, but there is no reason to think that imported food is more highly contaminated by radioactive fall-out than food produced in the United Kingdom, which is extensively monitored.

Dr. Summerskill: Where did the hon. Gentleman obtain that information? Is it not a fact that certain tea was discovered on testing to be radioactive?

Mr. Thompson: I am not conversant with the situation about tea. In reply to the specific question about advice and information, I have to tell the right hon. Lady that the monitoring programme is supervised by a special Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee of the Agricultural and Medical Research Councils and the Development Commission on Biological (non-medical) Problems of Nuclear Physics.

Chiropody Service

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health what organisations he is consulting on the question of a chiropody service.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I am not at persent consulting any organisations about the possible extension of a chiropody service as part of the National Health Service, if that is what the hon. Lady has in mind.

Mrs. Slater: I hope the Minister of Health will not lose sight of the fact that there is urgent necessity for something to be done to establish a national chiropody service under the National Health Service. If he arrives at that situation, may we take it that he will see that in any such service only fully qualified chiropodists are employed?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate the value of an extended chiropody service. As to the second point of the supplementary question, the memorandum which the Society of Chiropodists was good enough to send me was concerned rather with the matters of provision than with the detailed questions of qualification, but, of course, I have that in mind as well.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that various Ministers of Health long before him have all agreed that a national chiropody service for old-age pensioners

is an objective? Is he also aware that Ministers of Health always said that what stood in their way was the difficulty of getting money for it? Is he making representations to get money, or does his Answer to the hon. Lady mean that he has gone a step backwards; I hope not, because if so he will get a crack on the head.

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is no issue as to the desirability of the objective of an extended chiropody service, but I was in fact answering a Question about consultations in connection with the chiropody service and not about the means of financing it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the Minister feel it is time to enter discussions with these bodies about the development of the chiropody service, because there is a great deal of information now available which was not available before? If he has not started, when will he start to consult these bodies, including the National Corporation for the Care of Old People?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not know whether the hon. Member understands the method suggested by the Society of Chiropodists. If it is possible to extend this service, the obvious way to do it, I should think, would be by an extension of the service under the existing provisions of Section 28 of the National Health Service Act.

Food Regulations (Tuberculosis)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health why he has not included tuberculosis in the Food Regulations which specify certain diseases which should exclude employment from food preparation.

Mr. R. Thompson: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations, 1953. There is no evidence that transmission of tuberculosis occurs through the handling of food.

Mrs. Slater: Is that not a dreadful reply, that it is possible for tubercular people to be engaged in the preparation of food? Is it not time that the Department again revised these Regulations?

Mr. Thompson: No, Sir, I do not accept that. Tuberculosis in this country


is now largely a pulmonary infection acquired mostly by close contact with persons suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman again tell the House from where he obtains his facts? Is it not a fact that dry sputum is known to infect a person with whom it comes into contact?

Mr. Thompson: The Regulations are concerned with cases involving a risk of infection if the person concerned prepared or handled food or drink for human consumption, for instance, typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever or other salmonella infection, dysentery and staphylococcal infection likely to cause food poisoning.

Medical Students (Psychiatry)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he will discuss with the General Medical Council the desirability of including either a compulsory paper or a compulsory question on psychiatry in the medical student's final examination.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This is not a matter on which I have any powers, but the hon. Member's suggestion will no doubt be noted by those concerned.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister say whether there is any other way of ensuring that adequate attention is given to psychiatry in the medical student's curriculum? Does he not feel that for general practitioners of the future to be able to treat their patients properly and also to encourage students to undertake post-graduate courses in psychiatry it is essential that more attention should be paid to mental health in the teaching hospitals?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There are certain duties and powers resting with the General Medical Council in this context, but also for the last few years its policy has been designed to avoid giving detailed advice on the scope of instruction and the context of examinations because it has preferred to encourage flexibility and experimentation by the examining and licensing authorities. However, I am sure what the hon. Member has said will be borne in mind by those concerned with these professional examinations.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that 45 per cent. of hospital beds are occupied by people with mental disorders,

does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think it paradoxical that the medical student is not given an adequate education in psychiatry?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think we must accept that they are not given adequate instruction in psychiatry. We know that they are given more instruction in psychiatry than was formerly the case and the younger practitioner has a larger equipment in this field than his senior used.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend perfectly certain that he is sound in being so reluctant to lay down regulations or to use his influence in regard to the instruction given to medical students in this and other fields?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. Like everyone else, I am bound by the law. My hon. Friend will see the statutory position in the Medical Act, 1956. I should be perfectly happy to draw his attention to the detailed provisions if he so desires.

Water Supplies, Watford (Fluoridisation)

Mr. Farey-Jones: asked the Minister of Health what report he has received from the Watford Corporation in regard to the experimental trial of the fluoridisation of water supplies at present in progress.

Mr. Walker-Smith: None as yet.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Would the Minister bear in mind that tens of thousands of people, not only in Watford, but elsewhere, regard compulsory fluoridisation as an unwarrantable invasion of the liberties of the private subject? Would he therefore consider the voluntary provision of fluoride as is the case with iodine in areas where it is lacking?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I know that feelings are aroused by this matter, as my hon. Friend has indicated, but he in his turn will, I am sure, appreciate that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about it in some quarters. I assure him that the expert advice which I have received is that there is no ground for the allegation that fluoridisation has any adverse effect on health.

Dr. Summerskill: On the contrary, many people would think the people of Watford extremely fortunate.

Spectacles (Charges)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health why a charge is made for lenses of children's spectacles where a parent prefers a frame other than one in the standard range and is prepared to pay for that frame.

Mr. R. Thompson: The National Health Service Act, 1951, gives no power to provide lenses without charge unless they are fitted to frames included in the range of children's standard frames.

Mr. Hynd: I know that; that was the point of the Question. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that teenage school girls, in particular, often have strong views about the kind of frames that they want to wear? If the lenses are being provided free in any case, what does it matter in what frames they are fitted?

Mr. Thompson: There is a quite considerable question of cost here. As the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly knows, we have six standard types of children's frames. As to their suitability, I cannot add to what I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) the other day.

Hearing Aids, Newcastle

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made with the production and distribution of transistor hearing aids in the Newcastle-on-Tyne Regional Board Area.

Mr. R. Thompson: Last summer, hearing aid centres were asked how many transistor hearing aids they would require for all children attending them. About four-fifths of the total required by centres in the Newcastle region have now been distributed, and distribution should be complete within about two months.

Mr. Chetwynd: When is it proposed to extend this service to the general patient as well as to children?

Mr. Thompson: For financial reasons, it will not be possible to replace quickly all valve aids with transistor aids. Valve aids are giving very good service, and when the time comes for issuing transistor aids to adults we shall have to work out a priority basis for their allocation, in the first instance.

Mr. Hastings: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give some estimate of the relative cost of transistor and valve aids, first in production and then in maintenance?

Mr. Thompson: Not without notice; but it is considerable.

Elderly and Chronic Sick, Eastbourne (Accommodation)

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement about the provision of accommodation for the elderly and chronic sick in Eastbourne.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The need for additional accommodation for the chronic sick in Eastbourne is recognised, and steps are being taken to acquire premises for this purpose.

Sir C. Taylor: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how long it will be before this operation is completed; and when the premises will be available for full occupation?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think that it should be very long. In fact, I have prepared a draft compulsory purchase order as being the best way to ensure the use of these premises for hospital purposes. My hon. Friend will be glad, I know, to hear that the closing date for objections was 14th February. If the order is confirmed, there should be very little delay in bringing the premises into use.

Midwives

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health how many midwives were engaged in practice in England and Wales during the last year for which records are available; how many ceased to practise during this year; and how many acquired the necessary diploma for practice during the same period.

Mr. Walker-Smith: During the year ended on the 31st January, 1958, 16,706 midwives notified their intention to practise. This figure is about 300 less than that for the preceding year, but the precise number who ceased to practise is not known. A total of 2,804 persons qualified as midwives.

Mr. Hastings: Does the Minister think that the number qualifying each year is sufficient to make good the wastage from


retirement, marriage, service abroad and other causes? If not, what is he doing to increase the output of midwives for service in this country?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is not actually any shortage of qualified mid-wives. The difficulty arises because not sufficient of those who qualify go in for a practice. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I have had this matter considered by the National Consultative Council on the Recruitment of Nurses and Midwives. The Council's Report, which contains a number of suggestions, has been circulated for the information of hospital authorities, and is being followed up by visits by my medical and nursing officers.

Drugs (Cost)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health on what grounds he has satisfied himself that prices for corticosteroids which operated until July, 1958, at which period identical prices had been submitted to his Department for almost all items in this group during the previous two years, were fair and reasonable, in view of the drop from £56 to £12 per 1,000 tablets for one item of prednisteroids during the four months period subsequent to July, 1958; whether he is aware that this price reduction was by stages which were all observed contemporaneously by the leading American-owned or American-licensed companies in the United Kingdom; and whether he will reconsider his decision not to hold an inquiry.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Progress of manufacture has been closely watched with a view to securing reductions in price where possible, but initial costs were very high and no substantial reductions could be anticipated until economic production had been obtained. As regards the period to July, 1958, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 9th February to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). I am informed that, since then, uniform prices have not obtained. I see no need for an inquiry.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that his continual refusal to hold an inquiry is causing very great disquiet?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir, I am not aware of any disquiet in this context. I am aware of gratification that the prices have come down.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that on many occasions in this House I have drawn to the attention of previous Ministers of Health the gross overcharging by certain American firms making proprietary drugs? These facts have never been disputed by the firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has now drawn another case to the Minister's attention, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not dispute. Why does he refuse to make inquiries into something amounting to an exploitation of the National Health Service?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is no exploitation in this regard. Initially prices of these drugs tend to be high because of the natural desire—and entitlement—of the manufacturers to get back the amount spent on research, not only on these particular drugs but over the whole field of drugs, many of which may not come into economic production at all.

Colonel Beamish: Why does the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) find it impossible to understand that drug prices in this country are lower than those in any other country in the world?

Ancillary Dental Workers

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health when the experimental scheme for the training of ancillary dental workers provided for under the Dentists Act, 1957, is to commence.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have been asked to reply as representing the Lord President of the Council.
I understand that the General Dental Council has made considerable progress with the preparation of its experimental scheme, but that it is not yet possible to give a precise date when training will commence.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Minister realise that a great deal hangs on success in starting this scheme, as we are very short of dentists, and will be shorter still? Will he, therefore, do his best to get this scheme through, even if there is opposition from the Treasury?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am fully aware of the importance of this matter, as is my noble and learned Friend. I cannot give a precise date for the commencing date


of the training, as there is a good deal yet to do, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no unnecessary delay.

Research

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in establishing a central research and intelligence section in his Department capable of undertaking the studies recommended by the Guillebaud Committee.

Mr. Walker-Smith: A Statistical Branch has been established with a chief statistician, four professional statisticians and lay staff. The branch is wholly engaged on statistical inquiries and research of a kind which should lead, ultimately, to the provision of information of the type recommended by the Guillebaud Committee.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the very valuable recent report of the Acton Society Trust, which emphasises the very limited field of research that is possible with the very small staff available at the Ministry of Health at the moment? Will the Minister look at this again, particularly in view of these strong recommendations in this very valuable report?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, my attention has been drawn to the report of the Acton Society Trust, but it certainly would not be right for the hon. Member to imply that there is not a great deal of statistical activity going on within my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Patient, Birmingham

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Health whether he will hold an inquiry into responsibly made allegations, details of which have been sent to him, that a Birmingham hospital sent home an elderly and seriously ill patient without notifying his wife, who had set out to visit him, and thus caused him to be left in a neighbouring house until she got back again, with the result that he had to be dressed and had to walk to his own home in the snow; and whether he will also investigate and report on the associated allegations that these elderly people were not treated with the standard

of kindliness and courtesy expected of the National Health Service.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have already instituted inquiries and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. Chapman: How long is this to take, because the Minister has already had two or three weeks' notice? Is not this the sort of petty inhumanity which gives the Health Service a bad reputation? Would it not be better to clear up whether the allegations are true or not as quickly as possible?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course it is a good thing to get inquiries concluded as quickly as possible, but that is provided the inquiries are full, thorough and satisfactory. I am sure the hon. Member would not dissent from that.

Mental Disorders

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what guidance he proposes to give to regional hospital boards with regard to the establishment of units for the treatment of patients suffering from psychopathic disorder.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This matter is already being discussed with hospital boards, and I will consider the need for issuing formal guidance at the appropriate time.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that regional boards will need all the help he can give them in this difficult task? Will he give an assurance that he will help in the cross-fertilisation of ideas and encouragement of experimental units so that we can have the broadest possible attack on this extremely intractable problem?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. Although I would not be in order in referring in detail to things happening in a Standing Committee upstairs, the hon. Member will be aware that we have had an extended discussion on this difficult problem.

Drugs and Appliances (Costs)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Health if he will make funds available for a research study in a sample of hospitals, with a view to ascertaining the reason for the continuing rise in the cost of drugs and appliances, distinguishing


the causes as between different branches of medicine, price increases, new drugs and appliances, and so forth.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. Hospital authorities are already engaged on a general review of their costs following the publication of the first year's results of the new costing arrangements. I do not think it would be helpful to superimpose at this stage an additional study of the kind suggested.

Mr. Albu: Surely the Minister must realise that hospital authorities have not the funds or staff to undertake this type of research? Does he think we shall find the causes of these continually increasing costs unless we make a study of the extraordinarily wide variety of items which come under these headings?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am expecting to receive the reports from the hospital boards on the results of the costings review during the course of this summer, and when I have had an opportunity of considering them I shall be in a better position to judge to what extent, if any, further studies of hospital costs may be of value, and, if so, what form that study should take.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this matter has come before the Hinchliffe Committee, which is considering the general question of prescribing? Does the Minister know whether the Committee has carried out an investigation?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman, of course, has seen the interim Report of the Hinchliffe Committee. We are now awaiting the final Report, which I expect to receive before very long. However, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) is concerned purely with the hospital aspect, as can be seen from his Question.

Staffs (Grading)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to ensure uniformity between the gradings of staff in regional board and teaching hospitals.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is the responsibility of the regional boards and boards of governors as employing authorities to grade their own posts in accordance with the definitions of duties laid down for

the various grades. My Department controls the numbers and gradings of certain posts and, in this way, tries to promote common standards of grading.

Mr. Albu: Is the Minister aware that there is very strong feeling among hospital management committees and regional boards that the grading of administrative staff in teaching hospitals is at a very much higher level—that is to say, there are more higher posts—than is allowed in regional board hospitals? This will make it extremely difficult for hospitals in the Metropolitan area to recruit staff in future?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member referred. There is a good deal of provision which enables us, as it were, to facilitate the grading of appointments in the hospital field. However, if the hon. Member has any particular instances in mind I shall be very happy to consider them in the general context.

Hospital Facilities, Leek

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Health what are his plans to provide a new hospital at Leek, Staffordshire, in view of the fact that people living in the Leek and Cheadle areas now often have to travel long distances to the Potteries for treatment.

Mr. R. Thompson: I am informed that the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board is fully aware of the hospital needs of Leek, but specific proposals for development must await the completion of other and more urgent hospital projects.

Mr. Davies: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is growing pressure in the district for a hospital to serve the Cheadle and Leek area? Is he not further aware of the long distances which emergency cases often have to travel through having to go to the Potteries? I cannot think of anything more important for the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board to deal with than emergency cases from the hill country around the Leek and Cheadle area?

Mr. Thompson: I appreciate the hon. Member's anxiety, but I think we must agree that, in the first place, it is for the regional board to decide the relative priorities within its region.

New Hospitals, St. Austell and Truro

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made with the plans for the new hospital at St. Austell; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Thompson: The regional hospital board is negotiating the conveyance of the land which is being given for a new hospital, and has recently had preliminary discussions with officers of the Ministry about the plans for the first phase of building, which is to consist of a maternity unit.

Mr. Wilson: As the land has been given and there has been already a substantial legacy towards the building of the first stage my constituents cannot understand why this matter is taking so long.

Mr. Thompson: I appreciate that this has been a long-drawn-out matter. The site originally chosen for a new hospital at St. Austell was found to be quite unsuitable, as my hon. Friend will remember. A new site has been generously given by Mrs. Sawle and the board has completed negotiations with the county council, who were the tenants. There is still a sub-tenant to deal with. All these points tend to spin the matter out.

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made with the plans for the new hospital at Truro; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Thompson: Sketch plans for the first phase of the scheme were submitted last July, and the detailed comments made by the Ministry's officers are about to be discussed with the regional hospital board.

Mr. Wilson: An inordinate time seems to be taken in this case also. If the plans were drawn up last July, why has not further progress been made?

Mr. Thompson: The difficulty has been that this is a very difficult scheme to complete, except on the basis that it is phased. The regional board did not have that in mind in its original plans. It was, therefore, necessary to ask the board to produce plans which would make it possible for the building to be done by phases. This again has made it difficult to agree on a first phase which would fit in with all the subsequent additions to the scheme.

Nurses (Working Hours)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health whether he will publish the findings of the progress reports he has received from hospital authorities on the introduction of the shorter working week for hospital nursing and midwifery staff.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think these reports are suitable for publication as they stand, but I am considering whether they contain anything which I could usefully pass on to hospital authorities generally to help those who have not already introduced an 88-hour fortnight to make better progress.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that the House would be very interested to see the evidence on which he based his statement to me last week that a considerable measure of success has been achieved in reducing the hours of work without additional financial cost? Will not he, therefore, issue in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary at any rate of the findings of the progress reports so that we may know in what percentage of hospitals the hours have been reduced under present arrangements and for what percentage of the staff?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Lady need not wait for that information. Four reports are still outstanding, but I can give her the broad conclusions which I have already drawn from the analysis of the reports concerned. In the general hospital groups, the 88-hour fortnight has been introduced, in full or substantially, in 69 per cent., partially in 21 per cent., and not at all, or only negligibly, in 10 per cent. The equivalent percentages for the mental hospital groups are 54 per cent., 14 per cent., and 32 per cent., respectively.

Dr. Summerskill: Does not the Minister think that he should draw to the attention of those hospitals that have failed to take action or have taken only partial action, the recommendation that more auxiliary workers should be used? That, in itself, might solve the problem.

Mr. Walker-Smith: There are various ways in which I think I can help, and that, no doubt, is one of them.

Radiographers

Mr. Wilkins: asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet agreed to meet a joint deputation of management and


staff side representatives of the Society of Radiographers to discuss new agreements on salaries and gradings.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I met a deputation from the joint management and staff side of the appropriate Whitley Council on 4th February.

Mr. Wilkins: Can the Minister give the House any information as to the result of the conference he had with the Society of Radiographers and the Whitley Council?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. Our exchanges were very amiable and, I hope, constructive. I was able to give an undertaking that the management side of the Whitley Council would be in a position to make proposals on salaries not later than 6th March.

Mr. Wilkins: Can the Minister tell us whether, when he considers the remuneration of these radiographers, he will backdate the award 19 months, as in the case of certain civil servants last week?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course, this will be a matter to be considered in the Whitley Council negotiations in the context of this particular application, and of any other comparable matters that are genuinely relevants to it.

Mr. Robens: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's previous performance, what guarantee has the Whitley Council that the proposal it puts forward will be accepted by him?

Mr. Walker-Smith: This gives me the opportunity to say, Mr. Speaker—an opportunity I did not have at the time—that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) referred to this matter in the general debate on industrial relations a few months ago he packed more misconceptions and errors into a few paragraphs than I have ever heard before.

Mr. Robens: But they did not give the money.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that in the constituency of probably every hon. Member on both sides there is a shortage of radiographers—and, therefore, this question is put for all of them—will

the Minister agree that there is no misconception about this: that the gross shortage of radiographers is such that he should be in a position to come to the House and tell it what he has done, and what he proposes to do to accelerate their recruitment?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have already explained, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of these amiable and constructive exchanges, I was able to give an undertaking that the management side would be able to produce proposals not later than 6th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL RESEARCH

Medical Research Council (Mental Health Committee)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, when the Medical Research Council last appointed a mental health committee, and when was its last meeting; and if it is his policy to appoint such a committee in the near future.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Medical Research Council had a Mental Disorders Sub-Committee during the 1930s, which lapsed with the war. In 1955 the Council's Clinical Research Board set up a Mental Disorders Sub-Committee which reported during that year. The Medical Research Council is at present making a full scale review of mental health research and the question of appointing one or more expert advisory committees to assist it in promoting research in this field is one of the matters which it has under consideration.

Mr. Robinson: Is not this very revealing Answer one of the explanations for the gross neglect of mental health research by the Medical Research Council—the fact that it is at least fifteen years since a mental health committee sat? Will the Minister use his influence to see that a committee on this important subject is set up in the near future?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have explained the present position in regard to this full-scale review, and I am sure that my noble and learned Friend has these matters very much in mind.

JOHN WATERS (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the case of John Waters.
I have given careful consideration to the terms of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and other hon. Members.
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the case of John Waters and to advise this House whether the said John Waters was assaulted by certain police officers as alleged, and in what circumstances it was decided that no prosecution should be instituted.]
It is an established principle of Government in this country, and a tradition long supported by all political parties, that the decision as to whether any citizen should be prosecuted, or whether any prosecution should be discontinued, should be a matter where a public as opposed to a private prosecution is concerned, for the prosecuting authorities to decide on the merits of the case without political or other pressure.
It would be a most dangerous deviation from this sound principle if a prosecution were to be instituted or abandoned as a result of political pressure or popular clamour. In this case, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate decided, after considering the evidence before him, that criminal proceedings would not be justified.
In reaching his decisions the Lord Advocate's duty in Scotland, like the Attorney-General's in England, is to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, whether the person involved is a public functionary or a private citizen. In the words of Lord Simon he should
absolutely decline to receive orders from the Prime Minister or Cabinet or anybody else that he should prosecute".
This is an important aspect of the matter. Nevertheless, although this principle must stand, there is a second which cannot be ignored. Considerable disquiet has been expressed both inside and outside the House over this affair and

public confidence has been correspondingly disturbed. The Government have therefore, felt it right that there should be some form of inquiry.
The most convenient method is clearly to act under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. The purpose would be to inquire into the allegation that John Waters was assaulted at Thurso on 7th December, 1957, and into the action taken by the Caithness police. This would give the fullest opportunity for all the available evidence as to what happened on 7th December, 1957, to be brought out and examined by the Tribunal and for full inquiry as to whether the events were properly investigated by the police.
We propose that the necessary Motion should be taken as the first item of business tomorrow.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the decision announced by the Prime Minister and the fact that the Government, taking into account the feeling in the House and in the country, have decided to institute this inquiry after all. A special word of credit is, I feel, due to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who has pressed this matter very strongly, with support from all parts of the House, and I feel myself this is much the best outcome.

Sir D. Robertson: May I associate myself with the words used by the Leader of the Opposition, and ask the Prime Minister to accept my grateful thanks and those of my constituents and, I believe, of all the people and of our free Press for the prompt and efficient action that he has taken on this case?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: While accepting, of course, the very fine statement of constitutional principle which the Prime Minister has just given us, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not realise that it really overlooks what has caused all the difficulty in this case, namely, the refusal of the Lord Advocate and of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to give the grounds upon which the prosecution was turned down? This House is, of course, entitled to know the grounds upon which that was done—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—without, of course, inquiring into any detail about it.

The Prime Minister: All these are matters, like so much of our constitution, of balance and good sense. I think that it would be the general view of the House that it would be a very bad thing if the House or the Cabinet of the day tried to influence the semi-judicial functions of the Law Officers in the institution or the dropping of prosecutions. I do not want a Campbell case in reverse. At the same time, these are matters of balance. I think that the decision we have taken will commend itself as a reasonable settlement.

Mr. Ede: Could the Prime Minister tell me this? Recently, there have been two such tribunals, the Lynskey and Parker Tribunals. In each case the witnesses were examined in chief by the Attorney-General, who assembled the evidence. Would it not be rather peculiar if, in this case, that function fell to the Lord Advocate, who has already expressed an opinion very strongly on the issues which will be submitted to the Tribunal?

The Prime Minister: No. I must make it clear that the Lord Advocate has merely given his view that up to now there has been no evidence which would justify a prosecution, but I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's point. I think that we shall find it fairly easy to make arrangements for the Tribunal which will overcome his difficulty.

Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Doughty: Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be most undesirable if Law Officers, so far as their judicial functions are concerned, came to the House

and gave explanations upon legal matters of that kind, upon which they could be questioned and debate take place, matters on which they are asked to advise solely in their judicial capacity?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and what I have suggested, while completely preserving the principle which, I think, we all feel important, meets, I think, the general feeling of the House as to the best way to handle this matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the last supplementary question and answer, and ask you whether, as a matter of order, that question and answer were not both misconceived. Has it not been the invariable practice for very many years to permit Questions to be put down to the Attorney-General, and for the Attorney-General to answer them, about his reasons for the exercise of his functions? Quite clearly, he is not to be subject to any pressure, but information to the House has always been thought well within our Standing Orders and practice.

Mr. Speaker: The original Question by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) was, of course, in order. Otherwise, it would not have been allowed to appear on the Order Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Malta (Letters Patent) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).— [The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL BANK AND MONETARY FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.38 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Measure which I am proposing is a machinery Bill to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the increases in quota and subscription to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development respectively. My task today is one which does not lend itself, perhaps fortunately, to flights of oratory, so I shall concentrate my efforts, to the relief of hon. Members, on an attempt at clarity and reasonable brevity. Not that the subject matter we are discussing has no human implications. On the contrary, this subject is one which is bound to affect the livelihoods and standard of living of millions of people throughout the world.
I have already told the House on 3rd November, in the debate on the Address, of the general policy lying behind our support for the increase in resources of these two international institutions. I need, therefore, only briefly remind the House of the background, starting with the International Monetary Fund.
During the last two or three years, the Fund's resources have been used on a considerable scale. It started in a slow and quiet way, but it has developed considerably over recent years. In 1956, 700 million dollars worth of currencies were drawn. In 1957, nearly 1,000 million dollars worth were drawn, and in 1958 over 300 million dollars worth. In addition to these drawings, the Fund has entered into so-called "standby" arrangements with members whereby, for a stated period, a certain amount of currency is on immediate call. These arrangements total at present about 800 million dollars and were as much as 1,100 million dollars at the end of 1956. The standby with the United Kingdom is by far the largest item of these arrangements.
The Fund, in the course of these operations, has used up a fairly large proportion of its holdings of gold and of

those currencies which are in demand. The meeting at New Delhi, in October, decided to set on foot an immediate investigation into the need for an increase in resources, and the resulting report by the Executive Board is contained in Part I of Cmnd. 652. As hon. Members will see from the foreword to that White Paper, the Board of Governors has passed a resolution deciding on an all-round 50 per cent. increase in quotas. That resolution is one of the two causes of the present Bill. The resolution provides that the 50 per cent. increase will not become effective until members with at least 75 per cent. of the total of quotas have given their consent to their increased individual quotas.
Before member countries can do this, they must be in a position to promise the additional subscription which will become due, and that is why the Government ask for Clause 1 (a)of the Bill. Two subsidiary resolutions were passed by the Board which provide for the special cases of certain small countries and also the special cases of three countries— Canada, Germany and Japan — which have expanded their production and trade very greatly during recent years and so have justified consideration of special quotas.
Her Majesty's Government want to see the Fund working with its expanded resources just as soon as possible, and certainly by the time of its next annual meeting next September. As the House knows, for some considerable time we have thought it most important to increase the level of international liquidity generally. We concluded that the best and most practical way of doing that was to build up the resources of the International Monetary Fund, that is to say, of an approved international institution. I am glad to say that this objective had the wholehearted support of the Commonwealth Economic Conference in Montreal last September, when we discussed the matter there.
In strongly supporting the proposal for a substantial increase in the Fund's resources at the annual meeting in New Delhi, I pointed out that I thought that the Fund had been working on rather too narrow a margin. I said that we had reason to be very grateful for the continuing outflow of dollars from the United States during its recession, but that we ought not to conduct our affairs on the


assumption that events would always turn out so fortunately. Moreover, I said that the future which we wanted to create was one of expansion, which meant higher levels of production and trade and payments throughout the world. In working towards that objective, there might well be, from time to time, periods of strain and imbalance when substantial and timely reinforcement would be needed if our hopes were not to be defeated.
I should like to underline that the International Monetary Fund is an active organisation which, particularly in the last three years, has provided a large amount of money to member countries to help them to recover their equilibrium when for some reason there has been a drain on their reserves. The reasons why they have found themselves in a situation of disequilibrium have been various—crop failures, sudden movements in the terms of trade, or changes in confidence in individual currencies. In those kinds of circumstances, the Fund must be able to give assistance promptly. Many countries, including certainly our own, have found it of very practical value to be able to call on the assistance of the Fund, but this has been possible only because the Fund has had substantial unused resources to date.
During last year it became clear that these resources were growing somewhat slender. The total holding of gold and United States dollars, for instance, which was 3,500 million dollars in September, 1956, were only 2,300 million dollars on 30th November last, and of that amount about 800 million dollars were committed in the standbys to which I have already referred, so that there were only about £1,500 million—

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Dollars.

Mr. Amory: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. If he notices my making that mistake again, I hope that he will pull me up. It is very confusing when we are dealing with our own currencies and the currency of the Fund which is in dollars.
As I was saying, only about 1,500 million dollars were free for future calls by members, despite the fact that during the past few years there have been substantial repayments to the Fund by members.
I hope that the House will agree that in these circumstances, and bearing in mind the achievements of the Fund to date, it is a wise investment for us to increase our subscription in common with other members of the Fund. In this way, our own drawing rights, and the drawing rights of other countries, will be increased, and that will amount in total to a very substantial addition to international liquidity. I believe that with these increased resources we shall be in a much better position, all of us, to face with confidence the inevitable fluctuations in world trade and economic developments that may lie ahead in the years to come.
I should like to say a few words about our additional subscription. Our own additional gold subscription amounts to £58 million. The remainder of our increased subscription—that is another £174 million—is paid in sterling which is immediately lent back to us as an interest-free loan, so that this is for the time being something of a paper transaction. The sterling which is lent back to us interest-free would only be effectively drawn from us when the Fund came to need additional sterling, and the Fund would need sterling only because members wished to draw sterling from it.
Hon. Members will see from the table on page 13 of the White Paper that the Fund already holds the equivalent of 1,618·3 million dollars worth of sterling, or £578 million. Sterling would have had to be very strong for quite a time to stimulate drawings sufficiently for the point to be reached where the Fund's existing sterling was used up and any substantial call was made on this new amount of sterling we now propose to pay. So much for the subscription to the Fund.
Our increased drawing rights will be the whole of the increase in the quota, that is to say, £232 million or 650 million dollars, plus the amount of gold we pay in. As a result of this increase in our quota, we shall be able to draw, in all, an additional £290 million or over 800 million dollars more than we can at present. That is five times the amount of the additional gold subscription and is a very substantial reinforcement of our first line reserves.
Therefore, for reasons of self-interest alone, it would be well worth while commending this proposal to the House, but this is also a co-operative international project. We are investing further in the success of an established international institution which has already done a great deal for the financial and economic stability and progress of its members all over the world. So much for the Fund.
I now turn to the other part of the Bill, which provides for doubling the United Kingdom's shareholding in the International Bank as our contribution to the proposed doubling of the Bank's authorised capital. The present authorised capital stock of the Bank is 10,000 million dollars. The amount of our present shareholding is 1,300 million dollars. The United States are the largest shareholders, and we come next. The Bank, as the House knows, unlike the Fund, is concerned with long-term loans for development. We believe it to be of outstanding importance that the Bank should be enabled to maintain and, we hope, increase its recent high level of operations.
I am having to speak today in rather dry and technical terms. I have to mention articles of agreement, resolutions, called up and uncalled subscriptions, and so on, but the House will be aware that the end product consists of development schemes such as dams, power stations, irrigation works and railways, all profoundly affecting the lives of millions of people. Forty-nine countries have had International Bank loans so far, which is very encouraging progress. Countries of the Commonwealth, both independent countries and the Colonies, have benefited to date from one-third of the total amount of Bank loans approved up to last December. They have received 1,400 million dollars, out of a total lending of 4,200 million dollars. Those are quite large figures.
The work of the Bank has been a co-operative effort, but it will not be invidious if I mention two factors which have contributed substantially to its achievements. First, there was the action of the United States in placing the whole of the cash part of its subscription freely at the disposal of the Bank for lending from the outset. Secondly, there is the reputation for efficiency and sound objective judgment built up by the Bank's

management and staff, headed by the Bank's President, Mr. Eugene Black.
We are, indeed, fortunate in having him and Mr. Per Jacobsson, the Managing Director of the Fund, at the head of these two great international institutions. I should like to pay our tribute now to their energy and ability and to the efficiency of their international staffs. I have had the good fortune to meet them on a number of occasions and I have been immensely impressed. That sounds a little patronising, because each of them has about a hundred times the knowledge of these economic matters that I can lay claim to.
I am glad to say that the United Kingdom has played its full part. The cash part of our subscription is £93 million. Well over half of that has already been spent for Bank loans, and the rest is going out at quite a good rate. Cash subscriptions from member Governments, including ourselves, are one of the Bank's two principal sources of finance. Funds raised by the Bank through market borrowings—by public issues of International Bank bonds or by placings of bonds and notes directly with financial institutions—are the other principal sources, and one which is increasing in its relevant importance.
The Report of the Bank's Executive Directors to the Board of Governors about the proposed increase in the authorised capital is in Part II of the White Paper, to which I have already referred. Paragraph 15 of the Report states:
It has thus always been contemplated that the bulk of the Bank's lendable funds would be derived from borrowings. The 80 per cent. unpaid portion of the Bank's subscribed capital constitutes in effect a guarantee fund for these borrowings and is an essential factor in the Bank's ability to borrow.
So the object of the doubling of the Bank's authorised capital is to strengthen its guarantee resources, thus enhancing its ability to borrow, and not to add directly to its resources available for lending. That is made clear in the resolution set out at Annex B to the Report. There are five resolutions annexed to the Report, and I will refer to them Resolutions A, B, C, and so on, those letters being at the head of each resolution.
I fear I must become still more technical for one moment. Under the Bank's Articles of Agreement, the Bank may call


up only 20 per cent. of subscriptions for lending, made up of 2 per cent. payable in gold and of 18 per cent. payable in national currencies which may only be used for lending with the approval of the country concerned.
This is what has, in fact, happened with existing subscriptions. Twenty per cent. has been called, but no call has been necessary on the 80 per cent., which has, therefore, served the function of a guarantee. If ever a call became necessary on this 80 per cent. part of subscriptions, to enable the Bank to meet its obligations to those who have subscribed to its bonds, all member countries would have a liability under the call proportionate to their subscriptions to the Bank's capital.
However, as explained in paragraph 23 of the Report, although the guarantees of other members have been important, the existence of the United States' guarantee amounting to about 2,500 million dollars, is in many instances decisive. Today, the Bank's total funded debt, as quoted in paragraph 6 of the Report, is 1,800 million dollars. Thus the point is now foreseen at which, in the absence of the increase now proposed, the funded debt of the Bank would come fairly close, perhaps too close for comfort, to the existing United States uncalled subscription.
Therefore, the plan that has been decided on is as follows: the authorised capital and the individual subscriptions from members to it are to be doubled. As I have said, under the Bank's Articles the 80 per cent. part of subscriptions cannot be called to finance bank lending but only to reinforce the guarantee fund, as it were. Moreover, under Resolution B, the Governors are to rule that the other 20 per cent. of additional subscriptions should not on this occasion be subject to call for the purposes of lending, but only if required to meet the Bank's obligations to those who have invested in it or who have invested on the strength of guarantees which the Bank has given. This restriction is limited to the increase in capital and does not apply to the 20 per cent. part of the existing subscriptions.
A call on the new 20 per cent. subscriptions to finance lending will not be debarred by the Articles of Agreement themselves; it will be debarred just as long as Resolution B is in force and, as far as we can see, it is likely to continue

in force for an indefinite period.
That plan has commended itself to all the Bank's member countries. It is quite a significant thing and the Board of Governors, I am glad to say, has passed Resolution E unanimously. Resolution E amounts to a declaration on the part of members of their intentions to seek the necessary legislative powers for increasing their subscriptions, as we are now doing, and to vote on the other and more substantive resolutions in which the plan is embodied. Her Majesty's Government would not require these powers merely to vote on the resolutions. We could do that without them, though I understand that this is not true of all member countries. However, we require these powers to take up the additional shares.
May I say a word, in passing, about Resolutions C and D, though neither of these affects our own subscriptions in any way. Resolution C provides that Canada, Germany, Japan and certain of the smaller countries may have special increases in their shareholding in the Bank, broadly corresponding to the special quota arrangements I referred to just now in the case of the Fund. These are the only countries which will make an immediate additional cash subscription to the Bank in respect of the special part of their increased shareholdings, and these extra contributions, of course, will be welcome to the Bank.
Resolution D provides for a further increase of 1,000 million dollars in the Bank's authorised capital stock, over and above the doubling of the capital, which is the main object of this proposal. This further increase is to provide for new members coming along from time to time and for any special increases that may be made in individual subscriptions. We do not propose, and we are not seeking powers, to subscribe towards this particular increase in capital stock, which will be by way of unissued share capital for the time being.
What I have said already, will, I hope, sufficiently explain Clause 1 (b)of the Bill, which provides for payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such amounts as may become payable to the International Bank in respect of the United Kingdom's shares in the proposed increase of capital stock. I want to emphasise that no call on this increased


subscription, and, therefore, no payment, is foreseen at present. However, we incur a contingent liability to pay a proportionate part of any call which the Bank might have to make to honour its obligations to investors in the future, so we have to bear that in mind.
Bearing in mind, also, that so far the Bank has not suffered defaults from any country which has borrowed from it, that it now has substantial reserves, and that the 80 per cent. part of its existing subscriptions is as yet intact, I can fairly describe this contingency as remote. This does not in the slightest detract from the value or the need of providing the Bank with increased guarantee resources.
I ought to point out that if the Board of Governors—which, of course, includes the United Kingdom Governor—were, by a fresh resolution at some time in the future to rescind Resolution B, and if it were decided that the Bank should call up in full the 20 per cent. part of the increased subscriptions, then the United Kingdom would be liable to pay about £9 million in gold or dollars, and about a further £84 million in sterling.
If the House approves of these proposals, as I hope it will, we shall in good time before 15th September next take all the necessary steps to double our subscription to the Bank on the basis I have explained and in accordance with the terms set out in Resolution A. Under this resolution neither the increase in authorised capital nor any individual subscription can become effective unless and until member countries between them have subscribed 7,000 million dollars towards the proposed increase in capital stock; that is to say, 70 per cent. of the increase. This means, in effect, as a practical step, that the United States, among others, will have had to subscribe before the plan can become effective. We have every confidence that this will be done I have very little doubt that a number of countries will continue to look to the United States and to ourselves to give a lead in carrying these important measures to fruition.
As our sterling subscription to the Fund will be lent back, as I have described, and our subscription for additional shares in the Bank will be uncalled, hon. Members will see that the immediate demand on United Kingdom resources

will be limited to the £58 million gold subscription to the Fund, the figure I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.
I hope that the House will conclude, as the Government have, that this increase in the resources of these two international institutions, which have already done such good work, is clearly in the interests of the United Kingdom, indeed of the whole world, and should be supported with enthusiasm. I commend the Bill, therefore, to the House.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained the technicalities and the purposes of the Bill with his usual clarity. He has also quite rightly said that vast human problems are involved. I would like to join with the Chancellor in sending our thanks and congratulations for the work done by the Governors of the International Bank and of the International Monetary Fund and all their staffs.
As the right hon. Gentleman said at the Delhi Conference, the United Kingdom delegation gave its support to a 100 per cent. increase in the subscriptions to the International Bank and to a scheme to raise the Fund's quotas by 50 per cent. On this side of the House we give that our support, but we feel that the Government showed great reluctance to embark upon any further schemes to help the developing countries. It was not because nothing was proposed.
The United States proposed that there should be an International Development Association. I have quoted once before in the House, and I ought to repeat again, what the Chancellor said in respect of that proposal:
If it emerges in concrete form we shall study it with care and interest. But they should be careful about the resources and functions of any new bit of international machinery. Our own resources are pretty fully strained by our recent commitments and those we have just taken on at the Conference, so we do not have much scope for an extension beyond what we are doing at the minute.
This may be true, but to the extent that we cannot do more it is the Government's failure to use the productive capacity of the country to the full. The under-developed countries are calling out for machinery, our steel industry is working at only 75 per cent. capacity, at the coal pits there is £30 million worth


of coal lying idle, the metal industries are up to only 80 per cent. working capacity, and now, in some sections of the engineering industries, we are producing only 50 per cent. of capacity. The Federation of British Industries, which recently carried out an inquiry among 510 firms, found that 79 per cent. were not using their full capacity. So the Government's policy is responsible for our not being able to do more.
I have a powerful supporter in this respect in the Chairman of Lloyds Bank who, at the yearly meeting, said:
The most disappointing feature of our situation has been the failure of production to expand.
It is not accidental. It is not due to world causes. It is the failure of the Government to make full employment their first objective. The Government, now frightened by depression, say that we must have production at any cost. [Interruption.]Am I wrong in saying that?

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir. I do not think that I used the words "at any cost".

Mr. Bottomley: I was not thinking in the context of the Chancellor's speech this afternoon, but the right hon. Gentleman seems now to have given an all-clear for production in industry in this country without any regard to whether it is the kind of industry which will benefit the economy or help the underdeveloped countries. If we are to help the under-developed areas of the world we must produce the right kind of goods which will enable that to be done.
The Government support private industry, and private industry works for a profit, which is the yardstick of its failure or success. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that private profit is not a measure of the right policy from the public point of view. High profits which result in high productive efficiency are, of course, in the public interest, but high profits which result in monopolies exploiting either consumers or, in times of slump, workers, are not in the public interest.
I would ask the Chancellor whether we have not yet learned by experience. After the First World War we did not do the things that we should have done. The League of Nations, in its dying days, carried out a survey, and its report stated that the effort was piecemeal and

individualistic and there was lack of proper co-ordination, and that this led to the disaster of the 'thirties. At the end of the Second World War, as the Chancellor has said, we were all determined to do better. We recognised the need for a co-ordinated reconstruction of the international monetary system. The original proposals were drafted at the Bretton Woods Conference, which was in 1944. There were difficulties and delays, but eventually the World Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund came into being.
The purpose of the Fund, as we have been told, is to foster international monetary co-operation, to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, to promote exchange stability, to assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of international payments in respect of current transactions, and, above all, to bring confidence to members. As a result, it was hoped to lessen the disequilibrium in the international balance of payments. As the Chancellor has said, a measure of success has met its efforts.
The World Bank itself was more circumscribed. Its purpose was to assist in providing capital for productive purposes, contributing thereby to economic reconstruction and development, to promote private foreign investment by means of guarantees and participations, and to ensure that the capital flowed into the most useful projects. I recall that in 1948 I was the United Kingdom Government delegate to the International Trade Organisation Conference, at Havana. The International Trade Organisation was a proposal made by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. I regret to this day that the nations of the world did not see the wisdom of having this international trade organisation, for it would have been one of the most effective ways of helping the whole world in its present difficult economic problems.
It has been established that the Fund and the Bank, doing their best, have had insufficient resources to bring about the development or the world-wide financial stability that was required. The Bill in part recognises that, and it is for this purpose that the proposed increases are made. But the new arrangements really will not help a lot, because we are all aware that what took £3 to buy a few


years ago now takes £5. So to the extent that we are increasing the contributions already by inflation and the eroding away of the value of money the Bill is not as useful as it might otherwise have been.
The Bill proposes, in Clause 1 (a), a standard increase in quotas in respect of the International Monetary Fund. As the Chancellor has said, the United Kingdom increase in contribution is to be 50 per cent. There is a substantially larger increase for Germany, Japan and Canada. The German contribution goes up from 330 million dollars to 787½ million dollars. This inevitably makes Germany one of the Big Five.
Until now Nationalist China has been one of the Big Five. She was placed third in order of position inside the Fund. But she paid up virtually none of her quota, so it is hard to see that she will be able now to keep up her contribution. All of this shows that we must look at Communist China in the present context. I am reminded of the Question which I put to the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, when I urged him to call a meeting of Commonwealth countries in Asia to talk about the expansion of trade with China. I thought that it was a very good counter to Mr. Mikoyan's visit to the United States, during which he suggested an increase of trade between those two countries. The Prime Minister did not see the wisdom of accepting my suggestion, but I hope that it will be possible to bring the People's Republic of China into world affairs, so that she can make her contribution towards helping the developing countries of the world. This has certainly not been done in the case of Nationalist China.
As the Chancellor said, Clause 1 (b) provides for the payment of any calls which may arise in respect of the proposed 100 per cent. increase in the United Kingdom's holding of shares in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the object of the proposed increase in the subscriptions of member countries is to strengthen the Bank's guarantee resources for the purpose of enhancing its borrowing capacity and not directly to add to its resources available for lending. In other words,

no call on the increase in subscriptions is at present foreseen.
It is said also that it may not be necessary to add directly to the Bank's resources available for lending. Earlier, the Chancellor very kindly told me that if there were any questions that I thought deserving of investigation or answer I should put them. As he will remember, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development organised the Economic Development Institute. A member of the Civil Service, not a permanent Civil Servant, but someone who had worked in the Board of Trade during the time I was a Minister there, Professor Cairncross, was the first director. I can well remember the present director saying that at the Development Institute there were 22 earnest adult faces, pale olive, brown, and black, anxious to learn how to raise the per capita income of seven-eighths of mankind.
Is it possible for the Fund to give more money so that more can be done in this sort of work, because it is a valuable contribution in providing the technical assistance which is required by the less developed countries? The Government may say that they are doing all they can to help in the development of the Commonwealth and the Colonies since at Delhi they dealt with Bank and Fund matters and at Montreal considered the position of the Commonwealth and Colonies.
However, it is becoming clear that what was intended at the Montreal Conference was that the Colonial Governments should receive Exchequer loans under the expansion of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and that the Government would thus continue the present system of grants, while introducing a new system of direct Exchequer loans at favourable rates. Applications for loans from subordinate authorities in the Commonwealth would have to be made through the central Government of the territory concerned.
Since the object of allowing such authorities to borrow is to encourage further development in the less developed parts of the Commonwealth, I take it that the arrangements will apply only to India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Malaya, Rhodesia and the Colonies. Any loans raised will generally take the form of private placings rather than public issues.


All the Government will do is to give their consent to the borrower, who will then have to make his own arrangements. Thus, the Government's intention in framing the financial structure of the Colonies as well as the newly independent areas of the Commonwealth seems to be to preserve the status quo.
This status quo has meant the concentration of all reserves in London and a severe limitation on the use by these countries of their own savings for their own development. We have to recognise, whether by giving grants or by the proposed system of cheaper loans to Commonwealth countries and the Colonies, that the fall in commodity prices and the loss of income has nullified whatever other benefits might otherwise have accrued. In addition, the terms of trade have moved against Commonwealth countries, as has the volume of trade. The factors causing that are partly due to the Government's giving up the Labour Government's long-term bulk purchase trading agreements and less discrimination against dollar goods—and to that extent the Government have made it much more difficult for the developing countries to be helped.
During the Labour Government, Commonwealth countries succeeded in increasing their share of world trade, but that has not been the case since the present Government have been in power. The Commonwealth share of world trade is now about 30 per cent. while in 1957 about two-fifths of the total Commonwealth trade was conducted within the Commonwealth itself. To break up those figures, Commonwealth imports from outside the Commonwealth post-war reached a maximum of 47 per cent. during the Labour Government, fell a little between 1951 and 1952, and fell steeply in 1957 to 40 per cent. The pattern for exports is similar. The peak was reached in the Labour Government, 50 per cent. From 1951 to 1955 exports fell to 45 to 46 per cent. and in 1957 were down to 41 per cent. As world trade has increased, the Commonwealth share of it has fallen.
The sad thing about all this is that the increase in world trade has mainly been between manufacturing countries, which have done less trade with the primary producing nations. It is a sad reflection that the less developed countries

of the world did much better during the time of Suez than at any other time, because everybody wanted their commodities. Since then, prices of primary products have fallen by about 6 per cent. and although other prices have fallen, primary producing countries have had to keep up imports and import prices have not fallen, so that the backward countries have been placed in a far worse position.
In 1957, the combined trade deficit of the primary producing countries was running at the rate of 1·3 to 1·4 billion dollars each quarter. They managed to cut down their imports and as a result the deficit in the first half of 1958 was reduced to 1·1 billion dollars a quarter. In other words, despite the aid and loans given to them, resources of the primary producing countries have been steadily falling. That has not only prevented those countries from buying the goods necessary to build up the standards of living of their people, but has also held up development plans.
It was hoped that the Bill would do more than it is intended to do, but if it enables a greater flow of capital aid it is to be welcomed. However, I want to give some idea of the problem of the fall in the value of exports in the primary producing nations of the sterling area. Because of the fall in commodity prices, the value of exports of the sterling area primary producing nations fell between the first quarter of 1957 and the second quarter of 1958 by 2,000 million dollars, at annual rates. In other words, that is much more than the grants in aid which have been flowing into the sterling area, not merely from ourselves, but from everybody, including America and, in the case of India, from Russia. In short, the loss which the under-developed countries have suffered as a result of the fall in commodity prices has been much greater than the amount of aid which they have received.
At the Commonwealth Conference in June, 1956, Sir Anthony Eden, referring to the serious nature of the economic challenge presented by the Communists, said:
We are witnessing the start of a trade war, the like of which has never been known before.
The Government have done perilously little to meet the challenge. The Government's policy of financial decontrol has


harmed the developing countries. Decontrol was responsible for the Government's dear money policy and its effect on the terms of trade and the value of the reserves, particularly of the less developed countries.
The time has come when there should be a greater study of the need for coordination of all the efforts which are being made by the free world to help the less developed parts of the world. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have worked in liaison with the various United Nations organisations —U.N.E.S.C.O., the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, I.L.O., the Technical Assistance Administration. However, they ought now to be brought under one umbrella. It is time to bring all our efforts together.
The developing countries need grants and not loans. Further loans will only increase their already heavy indebtedness. They need grants to enable them to undertake or advance their development schemes. For this reason, hon. Members on this side of the House were most anxious that the Government should do everything possible to push ahead with the promotion of S.U.N.F.E.D. Something has been done on American initiative but the present scheme to help development does not do nearly enough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), who is to wind up for this side, feels very strongly on this matter and will, no doubt, have more to say.
We must face the fact that seven-eighths of the people of the world are undernourished, living in poverty. They are mainly non-white. These people who are not white will not, in time, distinguish between Russians, Americans or British if the standard we set is to improve our own lot and ignore the remainder. I am reminded of the book, "The New Dimensions of Peace", by that well-known American Chester Bowles, in which it is said that
Today, inside the City of the poor, the issues of war and class are underscored by the universal demand for rapid economic progress. Its achievement has become essential to political stability. Thus, a world-wide assault on this aspect of class is now an integral part of the solution of the problem of war.

We are glad of what the Chancellor was able to do at Delhi. We do not think he did as much as he should have done in the interests of our country and the world.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am glad to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley). I share his enthusiasm for the Commonwealth and his desire that greater priority should be given to Commonwealth trade and Commonwealth development. The right hon. Gentleman said that vast human problems were involved in any consideration of the two international institutions which the House is discussing this afternoon. He said also that full employment should be a first objective and went on to say that it was the fault of Her Majesty's Government that full employment in this country did not at present exist.
Later in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman ran through the purposes of the International Monetary Fund set out in Article I of the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference of 1944. One of the purposes there mentioned is
the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment".
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have gone a little deeper into the system of which the International Monetary Fund and, indeed, the World Bank, is a part to see how far that system has a measure of responsibility for the unemployment which exists in this country today.
I do not share all the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Nor do I wholly recognise Mr. Eugene Black in the glowing paragraphs of the Observer "Profile". Some of the intrusions of the World Bank into the international politics of the Middle East have been unfortunate. Mr. Peter Sellers' "Brouhaha" was great fun, and hon. Members will recall that it has a Middle Eastern theme. I think that the "Smouha-ha" in Egypt at present is simply not amusing.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor told us that Commonwealth countries have benefited from the operation of the


World Bank. When my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary replies to the debate, I hope that he will tell us to what extent the finance made available by the World Bank for schemes within the Commonwealth and the Colonial Empire—the great Kariba Dam project, for instance—has been reflected in orders for British firms.
This debate is more important than the numbers on the benches would suggest. Taxpayers' money is being committed under the Bill, as taxpayers' money often is committed, to international organisations and to agencies of the United Nations without any very penetrating scrutiny from the House of Commons. These agencies and organisations are often dominated by interests or influences which are not necessarily sympathetic, or may even be hostile, to the interests of this country.
I wish to devote most of my remarks not to the World Bank, but to the International Monetary Fund. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham reminded us of the purposes of this organisation. I want for a moment or two to consider how far those purposes set out in Article I of the Bretton Woods Agreement have been fulfilled. How far has this permanent institution of international co-operation on matters monetary facilitated the expansion and balanced growth of international trade? How far has it achieved a multilateral system of payments and reduced the disequilibrium in the international balance of payments?
One thing which the I.M.F. has failed to achieve is the end of the United States embargo on the purchase of American goods for sterling or some currency other than the dollar. Sterling, after all, is a currency which finances nearly half the trade of the world. It is true that the United States, in recent years, has accepted some soft currencies and sterling under its surplus disposal programme, but that disposal programme has certain features which tend to expand American exports without a corresponding increase of imports into the United States.
Has the International Monetary Fund and the general system in the free world of which it is part established a reciprocal or multilateral flow of goods and services? It is certain that the I.M.F. and the consultations within that organisation have not succeeded in laying on a creditor

Power the obligation to accept imports or currency from a debtor or to reinvest its surplus for— I quote from Article I (ii) of the Bretton Woods Agreement—
for the development of the productive resources of all the members"?
The Bretton Woods Agreement, as I understand it— I am certainly not a professional economist—provided that, once the American quota had been "drawn down", to use the jargon, by countries in deficit with the United States, the gold they paid in would be sold to the United States. I hope that the Economic Secretary will correct me if I have it wrong, because these are difficult and complex matters for a layman like myself fully to understand, but the logic of that seems to be that countries with persistent adverse balances with a great creditor Power like the United States progressively lose all their gold to Fort Knox except for such part as they are wise enough to keep in their national coffers.
We have lately read in the newspapers and the City columns of various organs about the recent outflow of gold from the United States. It is difficult to be sure how much it is and where it goes, but, in general, since the establishment of the I.M.F., gold payments to the United States from other countries have been in the region of 25,000 million dollars a year. I should have said that the "Tales from the Bretton Woods" have a harsh metallic sound.
My right hon. Friend spoke of the achievements of the Fund. With respect, I am not sure that those achievements are really as great as all that. Why is this so? I think that the reason is that the I.M.F. has aimed mainly at stability of exchange. In this, the cart has been put before the horse. A balance of trade is much more important than stability of exchange. Currency adjustments can achieve stability among nations provided that those nations are reasonably competitive, but where there are wide differences and a permanent lack of balance it is not enough to do what Bretton Woods did, namely, stabilise the value of gold and fasten currencies to it.
Much more important than that, I should have thought, was the stabilisation of prices. Exchange stabilisation is desirable, but the failure to hold prices stable — and here I quote from the Macmillan


Report of 1931, which might be called the pre-war equivalent of the Radcliffe Report, which we have not yet received and to which we greatly look forward:
… causes social as well as economic disturbances which leave no part of the national or international order unaffected. A study of history would, we believe, confirm the opinion that it is in changes in the level of prices, and in the consequential alteration in the position of debtors and creditors, entrepreneurs and workers, peasants and tax-gatherers, that the main secret of social trouble is found.
I think, also, that I.M.F. was based on a misunderstanding of the true sources of economic activity and economic progress. We sometimes have to remind ourselves in this island, where we are so much dependent on imports from abroad, that international trade is only a small part of the economic effort of nations. There is a false distinction made between the international value of a nation's currency and its intrinsic value.
Sterling reigned supreme in the nineteenth century, as the name suggests, because of what could be bought for it, because of the skill of British craftsmen, the energy of British workers, the integrity of British capital. Even today, sterling is the real international currency and the dollar is not. There are still 3 dollars to to every £ and 5 in terms of prices. It was a former Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Thorold, who said in New York, towards the close of last year:
If full advantage were taken of the facilities available, sterling could be used to settle nearly 70 per cent. of world trade.
I am told that at present it settles 40 to 50 per cent. Mr. Thorold went to say:
It is difficult to see how the post-war expansion of trade could have been so great if sterling …"—
not the dollar—
had not been available for making day-to-day payments required for its settlement.
I think that the Bretton Woods Agreement was also based on another misunderstanding. Those who drafted the Agreement were obsessed with a "One World" dream, which to me is a nightmare and which, in any case, is not a reality. It ignored the deep desire of men and nations in every continent for sovereignty and nationhood and some control over their economic destiny.
If the House will bear with me, I should like to quote one more sentence from the Macmillan Report:
It is no doubt true that the essential attribute of a sovereign state is the power at any time to alter the value of its currency for any reason that seems to be in the national interest.
Of course, that is a power not to be used lightly without feeling or consideration for the interests of others. In any case, to damage the interest of another country in this world of ours today is to damage one's own country's interest. Sovereignty has to be used responsibly and I think that it is used responsibly in the sterling area. It is certainly the foundation of the Commonwealth. It should be the starting point for European unity and of all international understanding.
When we talk about interdependence we mean, I think, or should mean, the partnership of free nations and not servile dependence upon a cosmopolitan concentration of financial power. We have been told that some great merger of the national economies of the free world and the financial resources of the free world is the alternative to Communism. I think that that would be more likely to breed it from the resentment that it would inspire in free men. But this power, this essential attribute, in the words of the Macmillan Report, of a sovereign State was surrendered by the party opposite, a party which believes in national planning and it was signed away in return for a loan in an International Monetary Fund Agreement which was never debated in this House.
In the White Paper incorporating the Governors' proposals for increasing the resources of the International Monetary Fund, Cmnd. 652, on page 2, I read this:
The largest single transaction in this period arose out of the Suez events which causes sterling to come under pressure. In December, 1956, the United Kingdom drew $561 million from the Fund and entered into a stand-by arrangement for $739 million—a total of $1,300 million. The assistance was granted on the basis of a declaration by the British Government that strict financial and credit policies would be pursued, that quantitative import restrictions would not be reimposed, and that the value of sterling would be maintained.

Mr. Bottomley: What did Suez cost?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: That is beside the point. The point is that the party opposite signed away the fiscal freedom


of this country and signed an agreement whereby it is possible for the International Monetary Fund to impose conditions upon the economic and social policy of this country in return for what?
As I understand—and I hope that the Economic Secretary will put me right if I am wrong—in return for withdrawing our own subscription from this Fund; indeed, it is not so much a fund as a pool—we took our own money out and accepted humiliating conditions, derogatory to the sovereignty of this country. But I hope that I have got it wrong and that the Economic Secretary will be able to put me right. I am beginning to wonder whether we would not be better off if we kept our gold and dollar reserves here and reconsidered our position in relation to the International Monetary Fund altogether.
To turn for a moment to the Bill which is to vote the additional quota to the I.M.F., I would ask my right hon. Friend whether this step and that to be taken likewise by other members is considered adequate to meet the expected increase in world trade. I have seen a figure of 150,000 million dollars a year as the expected increase in world trade during the next ten years. I see that on 12th February, President Eisenhower sent his request to Congress for supplementary credits for the United States contribution to the expanding capital resources of the Bank and of the Fund. So far as I could understand from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, any payment to be made by this country will be dependent on payment being made by the United States of America.
To what extent will these additional credit facilities—and here I quote from Article 1 (ii) of the purposes of the Fund:
… facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade …"?
Will it really do anything to bring exports and imports into a better balance as between the creditor and debtor countries of the world? I read in the first National City Bank of New York Monthly Letter, in October, that the United States insisted on expansion of United States exports before making its contribution to the liquidity problem.
One could not but be aware that the Commonwealth Economic Conference at Montreal, where much of value was

achieved, was overshadowed by the meetings of the Fund and the Bank which followed in New Delhi. Was there any connection between the liberalisation of dollar imports decided upon at Montreal and also the further advance towards convertibility at the turn of the year? Was there any connection between that and the American desire that her exports should be expanded before she made a contribution to the liquidity problem of the nations? Dr. Goldenweiser, of the Federal Reserve Bank, has said that the United States of America needs a surplus of 5,000 million dollars to absorb savings.
I do not really think that the sort of system set up at Bretton Woods can work under present conditions. What are those conditions? The various "buy American" measures from which the English Electric Company has suffered; the insistence of the great creditor Power on non-discrimination abroad for others while protecting its own market by tariff and other devices; the discrimination of the United States through the Export-Import Bank; and the discrimination of the United States through the surplus disposal programme under which funds made available may not be used to develop products competitive with American products.
In this situation the International Monetary Fund cannot do much to achieve stability for the free world in face of the Communist challenge. Fortunately, I do not think that it will be necessary for the free world to submit to its straitjacket indefinitely. The German miracle, the remarkable recovery of France, the recovery of Britain under Conservative administration and the revolt in Canada all show that there is a powerful movement in the free world away from the financial domination which has oppressed it.
As a result of the war. Western Europe became the largest customer of the United States' production of foodstuffs and manufactures and ran an annual deficit of 4,000 million dollars on its trading account. That situation, I believe, may come to an end. It is certainly no longer so necessary to get dollars because of the capacity of the other countries of the free world to manufacture the goods for themselves.
There is, I suppose, a short-term need for American grain. I think that the


Commonwealth, including Canada, could make that good. It is rather interesting to reflect when there is all this talk of East-West exchanges that 30 per cent. of Europe's wheat was at one time imported from Imperial Russia. The British and European nations are becoming strong enough to set the free world on a less erratic course.
I do not believe that the United States has enough dollars with which to finance the world for ever, even if that were necessary, desirable or possible. I wonder whether that was one of the reasons why the gentlemen from Wall Street were in conference with Mr. Mikoyan. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be able to find that out.
We in our island and we in the Commonwealth cannot afford to be dragged down in an economic conflict between two continental autarchic producers, both largely self-sufficient, and able to export or to dump the overspill from a vast protected internal market. Between Europe, the greater Europe overseas and the newer, less developed nations there is the need and the possibility for a partnership for the exchange of goods and services in balance and reciprocity. Use could then be made of an I.M.F. modified so as to provide some sort of automatic clearing system and machinery, so that when there is a persistent creditor the debt can be cancelled under appropriate conditions and safeguards.
I wonder whether one of the tasks of the new Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council might not be to consider how the Bretton Woods Agreement could best be modified so as to meet the needs of the present-day world. In its present form, the International Monetary Fund is too rigid to be useful. It typifies the dirigisme of an international bureaucracy. It is the product of Burnham's managerial revolution on a world scale, an international bureaucracy or technocracy not responsible to the peoples or Parliaments affected by its decisions.
While they are bound to the dollar, wicked nations—if I can adapt a Gallicism—which defend themselves resort to restrictionism and become converts to the doctrines of Dr. Schacht; the rising nationalities of Afro-Asia, forced to add crushing international debt to the heavy cost of advancement, and compelled to

borrow to pay the interest on the loans with which to eat and live, are driven closer to Communism; and economic rivalry and aggression frustrate an easement of the conflict between two competing systems of expansion for control of the world economy and the mastery of mankind.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Oram: The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) spoke, as he said he would, largely on the International Monetary Fund part of the Bill which we are now considering. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that since my thoughts have been running more along the path of the Bank I shall not wish to follow him too far in which he had to say. He will not be surprised to learn that with a good deal of what he said I find myself thoroughly disagreeing.
I found myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, perhaps for other reasons, in what he said when dealing with the stringent conditions which arose out of our drawing upon the International Monetary Fund. It was rather unfortunate that to make that point the hon. Gentleman had to quote from the very paragraph in which the lesson of Suez was particularly highlighted. If I understood his position aright at that time, the cost of Suez might well have been considerably more and the conditions that would have been imposed upon this country would then, possibly, have been more stringent.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I do not wish to raise the question of Suez, but does the hon. Gentleman accept the situation where the control of the economy of this country is in the hands of these people?

Mr. Oram: No. In my earlier remarks I said that I agreed to a large extent with the hon. Gentleman's point about the conditions governing the International Monetary Fund being too stringent, but I was merely making the point that it was coincidental with Suez in his speech. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, though—and I am sure that all hon. Members present would agree, also—that the importance of this debate is far greater than the interest in the debate as evidenced by the presence of so few Members in the Chamber.
In discussing the structure and the scope of the work of the International Monetary Fund and of the World Bank we are dealing with a most important part of the battle against world poverty, one of the greatest crises of our day. The Bill will undoubtedly have its Second Reading, but I hope that it will not be assumed that the scope and structure of the I.M.F. and of the World Bank are thereby being passed without criticism from this side of the House.
As we see it, what the Bill proposes is perfectly good but it is too little. The operations of the Bank have been too little when measured against the vast problem of world poverty which it is intended partly to alleviate. When we consider the problem of the world economy we are looking at a creaky old structure, a piece of machinery which is moving all too slowly. The machinery needs oil, both as a lubricant and as a fuel. The most that can be said on behalf of the International Monetary Fund and the Bank is that since they have been in operation they have contributed a little lubrication to international trade, but have not begun to contribute any of the fuel which the machine needs if it is really to work.
The White Paper which accompanies this Bill explains the need for the increased quotas as arising in the one instance from a doubling of world trade since the Fund started its operations, and also from the fact that world prices, including dollar prices, have increased since that time and, therefore, the real value of the original quotas has declined. I would suggest that there is another outstanding reason why the Bank and the Fund need to have their quotas increased and that the decision to make this increase, is rather late. The population of the world has increased considerably since the Bretton Woods Agreement. If we take the example of India, its population has increased by 50 million since that time. More people in underdeveloped countries mean that more food is required. That means a constantly greater demand upon the resources for investment. It also means that the requests to the Bank will be constantly increasing because of the increased population and the investment resulting from their needs.
Let us bear in mind, in connection with the newly developing countries, that

so often it is not so much an increasing birthrate as a declining deathrate which is causing the increased population. It is perhaps a little ironical that the great success that the World Health Organisation and other specialised agencies have in their work is outpacing the resources of organisations providing the economic basis, such as the Fund and the Bank which we are now discussing. There can, therefore, be absolutely no doubt that these increases are necessary; nor, if we look at the other side of the picture, can there be any doubt about the increased capacity of the Western nations to provide the wherewithal for these funds since the Bretton Woods Agreement.
I think it would be true to say that our own domestic product has increased by something like a quarter over that period. That is also true roughly of the United States. In our case it probably means an annual income of £3,000 million more. We have accumulated that additional amount of resources since we entered into the Bank's operation. Throughout that period our obligations as a member of the Fund and of the Bank have remained static until the point of the introduction of this Bill when it is proposed to increase them by 50 per cent. in the case of the Fund and 100 per cent. in the case of the Bank. There should be no doubt about our capacity to provide the wherewithal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer as saying that this sort of added contribution would lead to difficulties for us and that we were rather strained in our resources. That ought not to be the case. As I have said, the production is there and the resources are there. If there is any strain, my right hon. Friend suggested that it comes from the fact that our economy is running at a lower level than it ought to be running. I would suggest to him and to the Economic Secretary that another reason why the West may find it difficult to increase its contributions for international aid is the fact that so many of our resources are being used up in armaments.
We are indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) for an important piece of research in his book "The Arms


Race." In looking at the figures which he gave there, one gets some staggering contrasts, some staggering figures of the amounts which the arms expenditure of the Western nations has in recent years reached. Whereas, in 1949, 10 Western powers were spending between them £3,800 million on armaments, in 1955, according to the figures which my right hon. Friend gives, the figure had risen to £17,800 million, four and a half times as much in that period.
Now after a longer period we are being invited to authorise a modest increase of 50 per cent. for the Fund's resources and 100 per cent. for the Bank's resources. There is a staggering contrast between the puny amount that the world, including the West, are prepared to spend on international co-operation and the amount that is spent in international rivalry. It brings vividly to mind how much more we could provide for investment in underdeveloped countries if only we could find ways of making even marginal economies in arms expenditure.
I know these are sentiments which are very often expressed, and frequently expressed far better than I could hope to do, but it is worth reiterating that what is holding up developments in the countries where poverty is the dire problem of the age is the fact that the world, for all sorts of reasons which it is not our purpose to examine this afternoon, is using up a vast, a mad, amount of its economic resources for unconstructive purposes.
Pandit Nehru has frequently pointed to this dilemma. It was he who, at the opening of the World Bank meeting, in Delhi, last October, not only called attention to Asia's desperate need for economic aid, but also made what seems to me to be a most significant point when we are considering the operations of the Fund and of the Bank, namely, that their operations should not be governed by political motives. He warned the delegates that that was treading the wrong path.
I was reminded of what he said when yesterday in the Observer, I read a news item about General Franco's hopes of receiving massive aid from the International Monetary Fund. According to the report in that paper, it appears that Franco, despite the desperate situation in which, apparently, Spain is at the

moment, may feel himself able to reject the quite reasonable conditions put forward, or likely to be put forward, by the delegates from the International Monetary Fund, because he is convinced that the Americans cannot afford to let his régime founder. It seems to me that our country's influence within the counsels of the Fund and the Bank ought to be used against considerations of that kind.
The test for the provision of aid or not should be an economic test, and not a political test, and the economic test, I suggest, should be twofold: in the first place, obviously, what is the need of the recipient country, but also, and equally important, what is the recipient country itself doing to get itself out of its own economic difficulties. Obviously, under the one test, Spain could make out a very great case for itself, but I very much doubt whether it could make out a very impressive case about the amount of effort which it is putting into its own economic recovery.
Also in the recent Press, I think The Times on Friday last week, there was a news item about certain potential applicants for aid from the International Monetary Fund. The Times tells us that India is sending its delegates, via Moscow and London, to Washington, seeking a loan of 600 million dollars. I suggest that, if we apply the two tests which I have suggested to India, there we have an applicant whose claims ought to be treated with the utmost generosity. India's needs are crucial, and there is no need, in these circumstances, for me to explain what they are or why they are so crucial.
On the second test, whether she is doing her utmost on her own behalf, the criticism that is applied to India is rather the other way—not that she is doing too little, but, because of her desperate situation, she is too often trying to do too much. In The Times today—since I have mentioned the Indian population problem— I notice that Pandit Nehru said that the Indian Government is the only Government in the world officially to take up family planning as national policy. That is recent evidence of the way in which, in the economic sphere as well as in the social sphere, India, it seems to me, is doing her utmost on her own behalf, and that is why I hope our delegates within the councils


of the Fund, are going to see that India receives the maximum help.
I recall that just over a year ago, Mr. Krishnamachari, who was the delegate on that occasion, was finding not too generous a response to his request for aid. I was struck—I think I read it the same weekend, if not in the same newspaper—when reports were coming that he was finding difficulty in getting aid which India required from the International Monetary Fund, to find that the Soviet Union stepped in and made the offer of a grant. Surely, that is one of the urgent reasons why we should see that the International Monetary Fund and the Bank are as generous and as dynamic in their operation as they possibly can be, because there is this dilemma, for the under-developed countries that, if they cannot get aid from the West, and if offers come from the East, they feel that they must accept them.
In that connection, I would point out that loans which come from the Soviet Union are very often at a lower rate of interest as compared with the loans which the International Bank makes. On that particular occasion, it was 2½ per cent., with repayment over twelve years. I have looked up some of the projects which have been financed by loans from the International Bank, and I find that the interest rates are about 4¾ per cent., 5 per cent., and so on. I think this is one of the things which shows a weakness in the operation of the Bank, because the rates of interest are too high.
I am saying these things because I am conscious that we have representatives in the councils of the Bank and the Fund, and I am hoping that, as a result of this debate, and of the pressures which those who think as I do can bring on our representatives, they will not play just a passive role within those councils, but that they will regard the International Monetary Fund and the Bank as important instruments in the battle against world poverty, but only if we use them in an imaginative and expansive way. I therefore hope that all our efforts will be bent towards seeing that the Fund and the Bank become really dynamic and really expansive, and in that way, I think they will prove to be really worth while.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I do not mind confessing that, when I read the White Paper and studied the Bill, I did not feel that this was a subject which anyone should take up without having had many years' experience, if not of the International Bank, at least in our own banks or at the Treasury. However, I have been encouraged to speak by the speeches of the last two hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, on which I may be inclined to comment later, to feel that specialist knowledge of international finance was not a necessary ingredient to be bold enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I think I shall be able to take up a number of the points made by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) more logically in the course of my remarks than now, but there is one which I should like to take up with him at once.
That is the short-term advantage that the Soviet Union has in assisting countries like India in so far as—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate this — it is a totalitarian country with a centralised economy, and can, at any moment in time, say that the extra production over any year will go where the State wants it to go, and that it is prepared, as it has done, to hold down the standard of living of the people, or not to allow the standard of living of the people to increase as fast as it would in a free economy, particularly an economy in which the trade unions are free to act as they do in the West.
I should rather like to hear from hon. Members opposite on the question of what rates of interest should be charged by the World Bank. If one takes the supply and demand of capital, which exists whether we have a Socialist economy or a more orthodox Liberal and Conservative economy, the demand for funds from the World Bank are so many times greater than it is able to meet. If we press that economic argument too far, we would get a state of affairs in which the rates of interest might be ridiculously high. If they were very low, say, 2½ per cent., and not allowed to rise above that, the Bank would be unable to select between its customers. I am not suggesting that the Bank uses rates of interest as the sole means of selection, but it does combine its personal judgment on the merits of a particular


project with a certain degree of use of the interest rate as the selector. I merely leave that thought in the minds of hon. Members opposite. If hon. Members should ask me at exactly what rate of interest we would get that balance, I could not give a figure, because it would vary from one year to another.
This Bill has two main purposes. The first is to increase world liquidity and the second is to increase the availability of capital for world development. We had a very interesting debate last summer on world economic development. On that occasion, I wearied the House with a long speech with many statistics, showing the relative standards of living in different parts of the world and giving some indication of the needs of the under-developed countries. I also made suggestions of what we might have proposed at the forthcoming Commonwealth Economic Conference. I will not weary the House today by going over the facts I gave on that occasion, but so far as I can gauge, those facts were generally accepted. I will take them today as my point of departure.
The subject of increased liquidity, which is a very technical term might sound to many people more like an elementary experiment in hydrostatics. It really means the amount of cash available in relation to the turnover of trade. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned the need to oil the wheels; liquidity is the oiling of the wheels of trade. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the year before last, the Chairman of Lloyds Bank drew attention to the low level of liquidity in relation to world trade, and in that way he called attention to the importance of a larger supply of liquid funds. If this is important to us, as one of the richer countries of the world, and one of the more developed countries, how much more important must it be to the under-developed countries.
The concomitant of that is that we, with our more advanced economy should try to encourage other economies to become more efficient and to raise their standards of living, but, also, we must be prepared to help them. Without becoming involved in a debate on the Lancashire cotton industry, I think that we have to think out our position a little more clearly, with a view not only to

protecting our own position but at the same time to realise that we cannot expect under-developed countries to be able to pull themselves up by their own boot-strings. The thing that will help India as much as more capital is a greater overseas market for the output of her growing textile industry. This sort of problem is very germane to our discussion of what we can do to help the underdeveloped countries to help themselves.
The second object of the Bill is to assist in providing an increased contribution to the World Bank from contributor countries. These contributions are, as it were, a catalyst and by doubling the catalyst we can double the amount of capital that can be secured by the World Bank. I would remind the House that economic stability does not come out of the air. The World Bank is not like the widow's cruse in the Bible. For this widow's cruse one must have savings out of current economic resources. Out of the year's production, a certain section has to be set aside. It cannot be consumed, but must be preserved for the future, as a farmer holds back part of his crops to use as seeds next year.
When we look at the under-developed countries, it is obvious that they cannot be expected to produce sufficient savings out of their own resources. People who support the old-fashioned Manchester school point of view under-estimate the capacity of the under-developed countries to save! In India, the total average income per head of population is about £20 a year. He would be a bold man who would say that an Indian should be able to save enough out of that to provide for his capital needs. It is therefore natural that countries such as India should look outside their borders for capital and should appeal to other people to lend from their own accumulated savings. I want to complete the circle and say that in this country, like all advanced industrial economies, none of us feels that we ever have enough personal resources and that there seems no limit to the British public's capacity to consume within the foreseeable future. We can see almost unlimited opportunities for expenditure at home.
We have to ask ourselves why we in this country should give or lend some of our savings to the under-developed countries. I think there are very good reasons


why we should do so. The first argument is the moral one. I know there are hon. Members who feel that the moral argument is sometimes overplayed, but we are our brothers' keepers. If we are to have a reasonably orderly world we must play our part as citizens of the world as well as citizens of our own country.
There was a time when local loyalties were very strong and people did not feel the same loyalty to the central government in London as to their own parish. Today we have a position in which people recognise their responsibilities to the community as a whole. Just as a village which once was a social unit became too small and the unit became the nation, so in many respects the nation itself is too small. We are living today in one world and should have loyalties to it.
The last time I spoke on these matters I gave examples of how in my view science had made the world so small, through the increased speed of communication and, above all, through development of methods of mass communication of ideas and the consequent realisation of how other people live. In these circumstances, I believe we have a direct duty to assist in the economic development of the world. I should not have thought there was very much difference between the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House about that. The argument, the very proper argument, would come as to how much at any moment and by what means our savings should be transferred to the under-developed countries.
My second reason is that we in this House have a direct responsibility politically for some of the under-developed countries, namely, the Colonies. I believe our first priority in assisting the underdeveloped countries of the world must be to our own Colonies because we are directly responsible for them. I suggest that our second responsibility must be to the Commonwealth countries because, although they have sovereign Governments, they are within this family of nations, this mystical partnership which we call the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth is to mean anything, they should be able to get priority over those countries which are not members of the Commonwealth. If we had a vast source of savings, great largesse to give to the world, it might be different, but when there is so little to go round they should

have a prior claim over other countries upon our resources.
Thirdly, I suggest to those hon. Members who feel I may have been a little idealistic, that there is a very good material reason for helping these countries. It is one of self-preservation. We know from our political and social history in Western Europe that when the disparity between rich and poor becomes so great as to appear to many of the members of the community intolerable we have a potentially explosive situation. I need not bore the House by going over the history of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe. Hon. Members are familiar with it. I believe that sort of situation could arise and may even yet arise between the under-developed economies of the world and the more highly developed ones. I think it is only when one has travelled round some of these countries that one realises how desperately poor many of these people are.
The fourth argument is, I believe, an economic argument for the advanced industrial economies. I am thinking now a little into the future. The maintenance of full employment and the full employment of our domestic capital resources in manufacturing industries, particularly if we are to have a reasonable rate of economic expansion, inevitably demands a similar rate of economic expansion in markets. I question how far that can be sustained purely by the domestic markets of the Western world. Certainly it can for the moment, but I am looking to the end of the century, as is proper for a young back bencher to do, although certain of the older hon. Members may feel that I should do better to address myself to the more immediate prospects. That is an argument which has been developed by Professor Galbraith when he discussed the future prospects of what he called our acquisitive society.
Coming to the more immediate problem, I believe that assistance to the underdeveloped countries will help to preserve peace. We can argue our heads off as to the theoretical causes of war. I think there are many, but I think we would all agree that poverty tends to breed war. I would not put it more strongly than that. It is not necessary for my argument to put it more strongly, but there is more than ample evidence that it is one of the causes of war. Therefore, it would


seem reasonable that part, as it were, of our defence budget should be considered in the form of assistance to the under-developed countries.
Sixthly, there is the current reason of competition between the free world and the totalitarian world. I have already pointed out the short-term advantages that a totalitarian country has in the competitive export of capital where politically desirable, but, none the less, that competition is there and it is a challenge we have to meet.
I think these six reasons are strong reasons for us in this House to take this problem very seriously. We should then ask ourselves from what sources can these savings come? The only source from which they can come is British industry and the British people. How are they to be deployed? What instrument should be used for directing into the under-developed countries? The first and most obvious is the World Bank. That is the second object of today's Bill. The second instrument is Government to Government loans, credits and the like. The third in relation to our own responsibilities in this country consists of the twin sisters, the Colonial Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Development and Finance Corporation.
If ever we have time I should like there to be a technical discussion on those two bodies because there are a number of us who feel that the boundaries between them are not drawn correctly. I think there might be a case for amalgamation of the two. The distinction in title between Commonwealth and Colonial reflects a political distinction, but the economic problems of a territory like Ghana, which has already got independence, a territory like Nigeria, which is about to get it, a territory like Sierra Leone, which will not get independence for many years, are very much the same. The experience and expertise which can be applied to one can be applied to another. We have to think of these two bodies much more in terms of the job they are asked to fulfil than of this political division which has led to the existence of two separate bodies.
The fourth source is private enterprise. If private enterprise is to provide capital, either through loans, through a direct participation in equity or by British

companies going out to these territories and establishing branches and subsidiaries, there has to be reasonable treatment of capital. We all know that in some under-developed countries there is a political antagonism against private capital. That antagonism is stupid because there is so little capital to go around that those countries which treat foreign capital unreasonably will not get any more. My advice to them is not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg because there are not very many such geese about. They should make it as attractive as possible for those geese to go to their countries.
It is for that reason that a number of us, of all parties, are at this moment considering whether the world would benefit by the establishment of an international code or convention for the fair treatment of foreign capital. I know that some of the Germans at the San Francisco convention a year ago, run by the Time-Life organisation, put up proposals which stand in the name of Dr. Hermann Abs for a world code of the fair treatment of foreign capital. Those proposals struck many of us as being too extreme. They seemed almost to infringe on the sovereignty of the recipient country and clearly would be unacceptable. But there would be benefit to both sides of the partnership—because it is a partnership—by a reasonable code of fair treatment, with some recourse in time of dispute to international arbitration.
At the moment, we suffer from the fact that international law is only the law between sovereign nations. They are the only bodies that have juridical personality. If there is a dispute between private companies, even one as big as Shell, and a foreign Government it is doubtful, unless they have been operating in that country in consequence of treaty rights between the British Government and that country, whether they can appear at the International Court at The Hague.
I am no lawyer, but I have a great respect for the rule of law. It seems to be the only intelligent method so far devised by the human race of enabling people to solve their disputes peacefully and without wrecking their neighbour's peace, livelihood and lives. As the House knows, I have spoken on this matter before in the context of disarmament. I am anxious to see an extension of the


rule of law in every field. We should consider whether it is not possible to give private organisations juridical status so that in disputes, either between themselves or between themselves and Governments, they can have those disputes settled by a new commercial division of the International Court at The Hague.
Obviously, if companies were to get juridical status they would have to pay a price for it, in exactly the same way as a company which wishes to enjoy the benefit of joint stock companies' status has to fulfil certain requirements which Parliament thinks right to demand of such an association if it is to get the benefits of limited liability and the protection which we give it by law. I cannot help feeling that something on those lines would be a useful addition to the rule of law and would enable companies to go more willingly into areas which have a great need for capital and foreign industry but where the political future is, to say the least, doubtful. I admit that I have gone a little wide of the Bill in throwing out those ideas to the House.
I end by saying a word about the political problem that we as Members of Parliament all experience. We have to find a way of showing to our own electorate that money spent on Colonial development, Commonwealth development, increased contributions to the World Bank and indeed Government to Government aid, of which we all agree we want to see more and on a larger scale, is a proper use of our resources. This must be done in a manner which will appeal to our constituents so that they will not say, "Why are you advocating in Parliament doubling our contribution to the World Bank and making a 50 per cent. increase in our contribution to the International Monetary Fund while my post-war credits have not yet been paid? "I could imagine a situation where but for increased assistance to the Colonies and Commonwealth a particular tax, say Income Tax, could have been reduced by 3d. or 6d., to which our constituents might reply, "You should not have done that. You are sent to Parliament to preserve our interests and not to use our money to finance the Africans."
We must find a way, not merely intellectually, but emotionally to identify our own people with this problem. If we look at the problem in the same way as an economist would look at it—at one

end of the scale the relatively small population of the developed Western economies, their very large resources and a high level of production; and at the other end the vast millions of the underdeveloped world— I do not believe that that sort of comparison will appeal to people's emotions.
I suggest, although this may be a little quixotic, that we might learn from our experiences during the war, when we tried to raise money for the R.A.F. and for the Navy. Towns adopted a ship or squadron. There was interchange between them. They got to know each other so that the art of giving became personalised. I wonder whether there is some way by which we could personalise the relationship between parts of our own country and parts of the Colonial territories and of the Commonwealth. For instance, perhaps a town in the Midlands could adopt a town in central India, thereby achieving a closer relationship and a closer understanding.
Let us take our experience in our own family. If our own relations are in difficulties, we feel more concerned than if we hear that 100,000 people are starving in Calcutta. In such cases, we feel our obligations more closely. Therefore, we must use more imagination in the new craft or, if one likes, in the science of communication. Although we are using mass media, the trouble with mass media is that it is mass, so we must find a way of personalising it and getting it on a much more of a person to person basis.
As usual, I have spoken far too long. Like everyone else, I naturally support the Bill and regard it as a continuation of the good work which this country has started. However, it is far from being the end of the road.

5.47 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I can only suppose, from the relatively sparse attendance in the Chamber, that the names of the Ministers promoting the Bill have frightened away hon. Members on both sides who might otherwise have taken part in the debate. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) remarked, it looks at first glance as though one has to be an expert in finance to discuss these matters and I am sorry that only Ministers concerned with finance are on the Government Front


Bench, although I recognise that the Economic Secretary, in his earlier capacity, had an interest in the problems of under-developed areas, but that was purely personal and was in no way connected with his present office.
I am sure that we were all greatly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. I am only sorry that he did not listen to the quite contrary jingoistic speech of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and that the hon. Member for Chigwell has not been present throughout the liberal-minded speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. I dare not praise the hon. Member for Eastleigh too much, however, in case he should ever find himself in Bournemouth or North Belfast.

Mr. D. Price: That will never happen.

Mrs. White: I do not say that it will.
I do not propose to discuss the first part of the Bill, which deals with the International Monetary Fund, because I do not profess to be an expert in liquidity, either alcoholic or monetary. I therefore propose to deal mainly with the part of the Bill which concerns the World Bank. If things go in future as they have gone in the past, this is not likely to cost us anything. These provisions are primarily an ingenious way of obtaining more money from investors in bank securities.
Paragraphs 20 to 23 of the White Paper make it quite clear that the greatest proportion of the investors in the World Bank's securities are, as one would naturally suppose, in the United States—particularly those willing to take up long-term investment. In the United States, one has to be very careful to persuade persons and institutions—and it is largely institutional investment—that it is proper for them to invest in something with an international character because, as is pointed out, their experience has hitherto sometimes been entirely domestic.
It is essential, therefore, to induce those investors to invest, to obtain the guarantee of the United States Government for a very large proportion of the money. By this ingenious device, we are obtaining that guarantee, although, to keep it on a proper international basis, all the other countries must give a

guarantee as well. However, it is quite clear that it is the United States Government's guarantee that is the really important one.
We should not fail to approve the fact that some countries are now to be asked to increase their obligations to both the Bank and to the I.M.F.—Japan, Canada and West Germany. That is only right because, if one looks at the proportions of subscriptions to the Bank by member countries, one sees that that of the United States is, virtually, 30 per cent., and that of the United Kingdom just over 12 per cent. On the other hand, West Germany's is a little more than 3 per cent., Canada's is similar, and Japan's proportion is about 2½ per cent. of the total. When one takes into account the relative positions in the world of West Germany and this country, it seems right that the West German contribution should be increased. That is a very desirable aspect of this Bill.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh referred to something of very great interest and importance—the rates of interest charged by the Bank to the countries obtaining assistance from it. This concerns me very much. The rates vary according to what it costs the Bank to borrow the money, and have varied from, I think, about 4¼ per cent. at the lowest, to about 6 per cent. at the highest during the period of the Bank's operations. That is a very high rate to pay for certain kinds of projects that are absolutely essential in the under-developed countries, and I should like to look at it from two points of view.
The Bank charges 1 per cent. above current market rates in order to create a special reserve, and it is stated that this special reserve is meant to provide a fund against potential loss. The White Paper tells us that that reserve now amounts to about 377 million dollars. I am not quite clear whether or not all of that reserve has come from this additional 1 per cent. Perhaps we could be told.
In any event, the Bank has taken such extreme care over its lending that, so far, it has not had a single failure to repay principal, interest or other charges. In other words, its lending policy has been so conservative that it has virtually taken no risks. If that is so, is it really essential, or even desirable, that the Bank should have this extra 1 per cent. on


interest rates for a special reserve against loss?
In dealing with affairs in the underdeveloped countries, I think that there is something to be said for being not quite so cautious—a complaint frequently made against the Bank, which, in many respects, is a most admirable institution. I know quite well that its terms of reference lay down that the Bank has first to satisfy itself that the capital required is not obtainable from other sources and that, therefore, one can say that the bankers are fulfilling a very useful function. But surely the Bank should be able either to make loans for some projects that are not quite 100 per cent., copper-bottomed, and so on, or lower its interest and not take this 1 per cent. for contingent loss.
There is no doubt of the need for greater development in many of these countries, and towards the end of paragraph 9 of the White Paper there appears the particularly interesting remark that not only have capital requirements increased both in money terms and real terms, but the ability of the under-developed countries to absorb capital has improved.
That is extremely important. In the early days after the war, when the Bank was established, there was probably some truth in the assertion that there was a limit to the capacity of countries to absorb investment, because they had not the resources of manpower, organisation and the like. It is partly due to the work of the World Bank and other like organisations that, in the ten years or so since the Bank started, more has been learned about how to manage investment and development. There is, therefore, a greater field for intelligent development than there was earlier, and there are also far more people who have had training and experience in these matters, so that one has some assurance that the funds supplied will not be wasted or mis-spent.
That is a very strong reason for increasing the Bank's activities. I should like to ask the Economic Secretary whether any further thought is to be given to the scheme touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), which is very much under discussion in certain circles in the United States. I will not pretend that the Government circles appear to be

looking at it very favourably, but the Economic Secretary will know that in New Delhi there was again discussion of the proposed International Development Authority, the purpose of which would be to lend money for periods longer than the Bank normally lends.
The Bank's average loan term is about thirteen and a half years, but, as we know from local authority experience here, there are kinds of development that need a very much longer term. It is also proposed that for the longer-term loans there should be a rate of interest lower than that currently charged by the Bank, and that there should also be, of course, provision for repayment in soft currency, if required.
These three changes in conditions would open up a very much wider field of possible development in many of those countries. I had a very interesting talk in Washington with Senator Monroney a few weeks ago. The Senator, as the Economic Secretary will know, is very much a protagonist of this idea.
I recognise that there is the argument that in any case it is not easy to obtain adequate funds; that we in this country deal with that type of investment largely through colonial development and welfare funds, and that, therefore, one can pour some cold water on the idea of the I.D.A. However, I feel myself that the Bank at the moment, through following the policy we have previously discussed of extreme caution, is not really doing as much as should be done for countries, possibly outside the Commonwealth, which do not have the advantages of C.D.W., and I should very much like to know whether we have dismissed this idea out of hand or whether we are still prepared to discuss it.
I should like to say how much impressed I was by the quality of the training work which the Bank carries out. That seems to me, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham said, one of the really very valuable things which the Bank has done. I had the pleasure of meeting the members on the present course of the Economic Development Institute, people of high standing in the Administrations of their own countries. I felt that it was a most stimulating group of people and that they were probably learning a good deal from this kind of staff college experience


in the study of development in underdeveloped territories. That is not the only kind of training of administrators and economists which the Bank undertakes. It will provide an almost tailor-made course for any person of standing who comes along and who wants to learn more about the procedures and problems of economic development.
Having said that, I should like to know what the attitude of the Government is to this increasing proliferation of initials. During my few weeks in the United States recently I tried to obtain at least some superficial acquaintance with the various agencies there, the United Nations agencies and the United States own agencies in this sphere of development in under-developed areas. One finds that not only have we the International Bank and the United Nations agencies, including the Technical Assistance Agency, of course, but also the International Co-operation Administration, the Development Loan Fund, and so on and so forth, and side by side with these Government institutions one has the great charitable foundations, the Ford and the Rockefeller Foundations, in particular, which make grants sometimes for purposes similar to those for which grants are made by the official bodies.
In the Technical Assistance Agency, for example, one has a number of groups of persons all prepared, apparently, to go out and work in any part of the world, and one cannot help thinking, when one puts oneself in the shoes of the recipient country, especially of some of the smaller countries, how bewildering it must be to have this multiplication of agencies, and to know to which one ought to go with one's cap in hand, and to know where one begins and another ends.
It was put to me, about the United States agencies, that there is some political benefit in having more than one agency through which to channel funds, because one can manage Congress rather better in that way; if there should be any cuts they are likely to fall less heavily if there are several bodies than if there were only one. I can see the force of that, but I should very much like to know whether the Government are giving any attention to this problem of the ever-increasing number of organisms dealing with this matter.
The United Nations itself has a number. While I was in the United States I saw the beginning of yet another body, the Economic Commission for Africa—whose secretary I was glad to meet—which was just about to set up his headquarters in Addis Ababa. I am sure that it is most desirable to have an Economic Commission for Africa, but it just adds yet again to the groups of persons who are studying and talking and writing reports about all these things.

Mr. A. J. Champion: And using initials.

Mrs. White: And using initials, as my hon. Friend says.
So one must ask oneself whether there is not now too great complexity, whether one ought not to bring into the orbit of the United Nations some more of the work which is being done. The Bank itself, of course, is an appendage of the United Nations, and it is working very closely indeed with the specialised agencies. I think that it would have been very interesting if we could have had a rather wider speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today. I appreciate that his concern with the Bill is primarily a financial one, but there are all these other questions which, after all, come within the scope of the Bill, and I hope very much that in replying to the debate the Economic Secretary will feel able to deal with some of them.

6.6 p.m.

Sir Peter Roberts: I wish to detain the House for only a short time. I should like first of all to take up one of the points with which the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) dealt, and that is the past record of the International Bank itself. I rather feel with her that those of us who looked upon it when it was first founded as a great hope for expansion have been a little disappointed over the years. Caution and the solid backing of the American dollar with very little backing by anybody else can be blamed for it. Therefore, I am very grateful for this Bill and for the discussions and negotiations which went on before it was presented.
However, there is one problem which I should like to put to the Economic Secretary. It arises out of what the hon.


Lady said. She said that the average length of years of the terms of loans was 13½ years and quoted rates of interest from 4¼ per cent. to 6 per cent. As she said, those who are dealing in that sort of term can go to quite a number of places to get their money. I am not complaining at the 4¼ per cent. or 4½ per cent. rate of interest, but I have found that at the present time the difficulty is shorter-term borrowing than for, say, 13, 14 or 15 years. At present, as I am sure hon. Members know, under export guarantee loans it is reasonably easy, if the proposition is a sound one, to get money on five years' credit.
What I find is generally happening is that whereas we in this country are tied to a five-year credit period our competitors abroad are going farther and farther along the road of competitive years' bidding. We find that the Germans or the Americans can elongate credit from five to six, seven, eight or even ten years. Having listened to what the hon. Lady has said, I am wondering whether there is not a function for the World Bank to manipulate funds in a form of two-tier financing. It is easy enough, as I say, to get one's finance for the first five or six years to back a big project, but over credit for such amount of time as the hon. Lady was referring to there is, as she said, great caution, and I am wondering whether, in order to stop this international competition in credit, it would not be possible to bridge that gap between the longer terms and the Government guaranteed five-year period.
I am very doubtful about the efficacy or the wisdom in the long run of a credit race. I congratulate the Government on the stand which they have taken in not encouraging such a race. It seems to me that in the negotiations with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund it might be possible, if a new approach could be made, to institute some form of two-tier financing so that the ordinary finance of industry, backed by Government guarantee, could carry the first five or six years and it might then be possible for the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, through the Government, to come in and take some risk beyond that, and to take this competition which at present we in this country are not standing up to very well. I appreciate that he cannot reply

this afternoon, but I ask the Economic Secretary to consider whether it might not be possible to encourage the World Bank to take the back-end period of loans of this kind, which carry more risk, it is true, but with which the Bank may now have funds to deal.
My second point arises out of the interesting speech made by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram), who was talking about the principles on which these loans should be made. He said that they should be economic, but I thought that he then brought in some political reasons. In so doing he referred to India, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price). It is important to realise that these vast loans which the Americans, ourselves and the World Bank are making to the so-called under-developed countries should be directed towards the development of exports. I do not see how the vast financial loans of capital which have been and are being made to places like India, Ceylon and Indonesia can be repaid in the period stipulated unless those countries can increase their exports and thereby earn the currency which will repay the loans. Otherwise, the loans will become debts, and once that happens confidence in currency will begin to be shaken.
Speaking of India, I should like to remind the House of the enormous iron-ore deposits in that country. Some of them are of up to 55 to 65 per cent., which, if developed, could be exported to this country where at present we are importing about 18 million tons of iron ore annually. It is to that sort of development that we should put our loans, rather than to developments which in themselves do not bring in exports. Those are the two points to which I should like to draw the attention of the Economic Secretary. I will not take further time from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), who was kind enough to allow me to speak. The Bill will be a step forward in international finance which is badly needed at present.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I am very glad that the House has heard the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts). I do not agree with him about exports. The vital thing is to raise the


standard of living of these countries. That, indirectly but quite soon, will also increase the volume and value of their exports. I have great sympathy, although I do not want to say much about it now, with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) about co-ordinating and canalising the work of international development through the institutions of the United Nations.
Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend said, we shall vote for the Bill, and vote with great good will. Both the Bank and the Fund are outstanding examples of succesful international co-operation. With staffs drawn from more than 50 different nationalities they have worked over a long period of years with efficiency, economy and a very notable degree of zeal, and they have achieved results of which hon. and right hon. Members have spoken with appreciation today.
I expect that a good many hon. Members had not realised until they read Command 652 that the Fund, from its foundation until now, had made available to its members financial assistance amounting to almost £1,500 million; that the transactions which involved about two-thirds of this great total were arranged during the last two years; and that although what the White Paper calls
… the extreme tensions that gripped the major exchange markets in 1956 and 1957 …
have now abated, the Fund is still receiving requests for assistance from its members almost every month. Nor may some hon. Members have recalled that by far the largest of the Fund's transactions was for us, in 1956; a drawing of 561 million dollars and a standby arrangement for 739 million dollars, a total of 1,300 million dollars amounting to nearly a third of the Fund's total operations since the start, it was carried through for the benefit of this country after the disastrous Suez war in December, 1956.
I should like to ask the Economic Secretary some questions about this Suez war transaction. I gather that we shall have paid back 200 million dollars of our 561 million dollars drawing before April this year, and will pay the rest in 1960 and 1961. I gather that we are paying no interest on this amount. I

should be glad of an assurance that that is so. But I also understand that we paid a "service charge" of ½ per cent. on this drawing when it was made; a charge which, on 560 million dollars, if my arithmetic is right, is almost exactly £1 million. I further understand that on our standby arrangement for 739 million dollars we pay an annual charge of ¼per cent., which is approximately £660,000.
If we keep our standby arrangement until we have repaid our drawing, that is to say until 1961, this charge of ¼ per cent. will have cost us well over £3 million and, with the other £1 million of which I have spoken, the total cost to us of this operation with the Fund will have been about £4½ million. That is a trifling sum, of course, compared with the other direct and indirect costs of the Suez war; but it is not a negligible sum. It would pay for almost three years our British contribution to the budget of the United Nations, against which criticisms, if I understood an hon. Member aright, have been made today.
The £4½ million is also, of course, a trifling charge in comparison with the service which the Fund rendered to our country in 1956. We did not need Mr. Randolph Churchill's book to tell us that without the help of the Fund the £ sterling would have suffered a devastating blow. The Directors of the Fund do not overstate the truth when they say that the Suez war created
an emergency situation in which the massive use of the Fund's resources was required to prevent a major crisis in the international exchange structure.
That was not only a great service to us but a great service to the world as well — perhaps the Fund's greatest service.
But the Fund has done much else beside. I remember that in its very early years, a number of European countries suffered from severe shortages of foreign exchange and the Fund helped powerfully to pull them through. The same thing has happened in the last two years. But although the credits provided by the I.M.F. before 1956 have all been repaid, and although this means that the resources form a rapidly revolving fund, nevertheless it is clear, on the figures given by the Chancellor this afternoon, of a fall in uncommitted resources in gold and dollars from 3,500 million dollars to


1,500 million dollars in the last two years, that the Fund's resources must be quickly increased. By passing the Bill we shall help to increase them by 50 per cent. of the 9,000 million dollars at which the members' quotas were fixed in 1944. That sounds a formidable increase, but the Directors point out in their Report that
the rise in dollar prices by at least 50 per cent. since that date has correspondingly reduced the real value of the Fund's resources.
That means that the proposed increase will just about put the Fund back, in real resources, where it was when it began.
Before I finish with the Fund, I want to urge on the Minister that that may not be enough. It has been most cogently argued in Lloyds Bank Review, October, 1958, p. 18, by the bearer of a very famous name, Mr. Maxwell Stamp, and it has been argued this afternoon very powerfully, that international trade has been grievously restricted in recent times because so many nations, like ourselves, have had balance of payments difficulties, shortages of gold and dollar reserves. Mr. Stamp, who served on the staff of the Fund for a period of years, urges that the Fund should be empowered to accept the pledge of commercial bills which have been re-discounted by a central bank; or to accept a pledge of certain tax revenues of the kind which I remember Greece used to hypothecate to the holders of the British-French-Russian loan many years ago; or that the Fund might accept a mortgage on a State-owned industry, as indeed Greece did on the lands and houses given to the refugees in 1922. Mr. Stamp said:
It should not be beyond the wit of man to find assets other than gold the security of which would 'protect the Fund's interests', and enable it to grant credit much more easily than it does at present.
The House will remember that Lord Keynes wanted the Fund to be able to create a new international paper currency, to which he gave the name "Bancor", as a means of settlement among the member States. Sir Oliver Franks recently has been suggesting that the Fund should be used more as a world central bank to mobilise the liquid resources now locked up in currency reserves and use them to finance a lot more trade, as a national central bank does with its reserves.
The increase in the Fund's quotas, to which we shall today agree, is a step in the right direction, but I believe it is not adequate in view of the dangerous world economic situation which we face.
In our view, the same is true of the proposed increase in the reserves of the International Bank. Like the Fund, the Bank has a splendid record. I remember all too vividly in the days before the Fund and Bank were created, the difficulties of raising loans for nations that required capital for reconstruction or development. I was Lord Salter's colleague when he put through the first League of Nations loan for Austria in 1922. I was with Dr. Nansen in Athens in the autumn of 1922 when he proposed the refugee loan for Greece. Greece had suffered a major disaster in the Asia Minor war. She had been fighting for ten years. Her population was only 4½ million. One and a half million refugees came flooding in from Eastern Thrace and Asia Minor, without money, clothes, animals or tools. The Greek drachma fell in six weeks from 18 to the £ to 360.
It took Dr. Nansen and Lord Salter nine months to get the first instalment of the League of Nations loan, which in the end reached a total of £14 million. That loan saved Greece from social and economic disaster, but it came only after very great suffering had been inflicted on the people of Greece and on the refugees. Greece bad to accept a League of Nations Commission administering it on Greek soil. The lands and the houses given to the refugees were mortgaged to the lenders and the Greek Government had to pay interest at 7 per cent.
The International Bank works better. In its twelve years of existence it has made loans, as the Chancellor said, to forty-nine countries or territories to a total value of well over £1,500 million. The first £200 million were for reconstruction in Europe. I recall the point, for a reason which will later appear. The rest has gone for development, mainly in the under-developed countries of the world. Such investment is, ex hypothesi, a difficult and hazardous affair. It was not rendered easier by the fact that, after the second World War, what the Directors call the "investment community" was extremely distrustful of international lending and very ill-informed about the International Bank.
Mr. Eugene Black's achievement in creating confidence among investors has been very remarkable. And he has shown his statesmanship even more strikingly in his relations with the governments to whom he lends. Some years ago he wrote an article in which he set out the principles on which he and his co-directors work. He said:
They seek to apply their capital creatively and efficiently, and where it makes its most immediate contribution to increasing production, raising living standards and opening opportunities for further investment.
They have often declined to make loans which would have earned a profit but which would not have served these wider economic ends. They have sought to finance, not an isolated project, but, if possible, a group of projects which together will have a cumulative effect on a nation's economic life—for example, in Ethiopia roads, telephones, and a development bank to promote the output of Ethiopian agriculture, and in Siam irrigation, railways and port facilities to increase the export of agricultural products.
They have succeeded in creating trust and mutual respect between themselves and the recipients of their loans to a very remarkable degree, so much so that the recipients take their advice about other investment and, indeed, about economic policy in general. They have trained local people how to operate their projects when they have been completed. For example, in the Ethiopian road scheme they had a provision for training local management and labour in the maintenance of roads. They have rendered technical assistance which has gone far beyond the scope of an individual loan. In many cases they have made a comprehensive study of a country's resources and have drawn up a general plan for its economic advance. Sometimes the general results of this planning have been more important than the direct consequences of a loan which the Bank may have made.
The directors found that one of the greatest difficulties in their development investment was the inexperience of receiving Governments in economic and financial policy problems. They therefore set up in 1956, with the help of two American foundations—the Bank now carries it on itself—the Economic Development Institute in Washington, where

they train senior officials from National Ministries, central banks, development corporations and so on. That has proved to be a great practical success, but it has worked on too small a scale. Mr. Gordon Evans has proposed that it ought to be supplemented by other regional institutes for the same purpose, where costs would be smaller and where greater numbers could be trained. I hope the Chancellor will note the suggestion, for it might lead to great results.
I am trying not to be unnecessarily controversial, but I must ask the House to note this important fact. It has been much easier for the Bank to work on these principles, to establish this kind of relation with those to whom it makes its loans, because it is a public institution which is not primarily concerned with making profits.
It has worked on what we call sound commercial principles. It has never lent more than it believed the countries could afford to pay. But, nevertheless, the directors have always accepted the basic maxim that their task is to raise the standards of living of the nations they serve, and much of what they have done has transcended the limits of ordinary commercial practice or of what a commercial bank could justifiably do. They have been rewarded by the fact that they have built up adequate reserves, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East said, they have never had a single failure to pay principal, interest or charges on bank loans. I have great sympathy with what she said about the Bank's rates of interest. A strong case can be made for its present practice, but I look forward with keen anticipation to the day when its rates of interest are divorced from, not dependent upon, the rates of interest in the United States, and when it will be able to make much longer term loans than it has made up till now.
In spite of their caution—perhaps because of it, the Directors would argue—the scale of their work has, as the Chancellor knows, continually, and now in recent years rapidly, increased. They made loans in 1953–54 to the value of 324 million dollars, in 1957–58 to the value of 711 million dollars, more than twice as much. Already this year they are running at an annual rate of 900 million dollars, and no doubt the figure will go on increasing.
It is that development which has caused the Directors to ask for the doubling of their authorised capital to the figure of 20,000 million dollars. That sounds a lot, but it is less than half the annual expenditure of the United States on national defence; less than half one year's expenditure. Is that figure adequate to meet the need for world development, to combat the grinding poverty in which the great majority of our fellow human beings are born and live today?
The Bank Directors say in their Report that their task is "staggering." Mr. Hammarskjöld goes further. Last year he said that two trends in world affairs are, in the long run, more dangerous than the ideological conflict which now divides East and West. One is the continued tendency for population to increase faster than production in those areas where the standards of living are lowest. The other is the fact that the gulf separating the standards of living in those areas from the standards of the economically advanced regions continues to widen. He also says that—
… no attack on these trends can be successful without a combination of measures of an order of magnitude far beyond what has so far been undertaken.
He calls this
the greatest economic challenge to all nations, both individually and collectively,
and adds that its great urgency has not been understood.
Let the House reflect on the Bank Directors' word "staggering", and on the Secretary General's declaration that the measures needed must be "far beyond anything so far undertaken."
A recent publication by the Bank shows that in Mexico the population is increasing by 1 million a year, but that the standard of living is rising slightly more, in great part due to large loans which the Bank has given. The case of Mexico is very rare. The United Nations Commission on Population, now sitting in Geneva, said the other day that it estimates that the increase of population in the under-developed countries will be 2,000 million within 40 years from now. The balance against the advanced West will increase by 2,000 million, more than two-thirds of the present population of the world, within 40 years. India is at present a bulwark of democracy in Asia; but the average income in India is about

25 dollars a head per year. There are 200 million Indians who have less than 20 dollars on which to live. It is a kind of poverty we cannot imagine.
The other day in The Times Sir Herbert Broadley gave us a picture based on U.N.I.C.E.F., the United Nations Childrens Fund. Since U.N.I.C.E.F. began its operations 1,000 million children have been born into the world. Between 150 million and 250 million of them died in their first year, which is an infant mortality rate of 250 per 1,000. Ours is 23. Between 150 million and 250 million of the children probably got a fair start in the advanced Western countries, leaving 600 million who were born in dirt and squalor, condemned to life-long hunger, subject to trachoma, leprosy, yaws, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases, mostly without education of any kind.
It is long years since Mr. Eugene Black said that disease and illiteracy hold down productive ability. Of course it is true: one cannot start any large scale work until there are clerks who can write and add well enough to keep the wages sheets. We could not begin to build the Panama Canal until yellow fever had been wiped out. Trachoma may blind its victims, leaving them a burden on their nation's economy for all their lives. It can be cured by a few applications of an ointment. There are 400 million people with trachoma in the world and only a small proportion are getting the treatment they require.
Yaws is a hideous disease which cripples people for productive work. One dose of penicillin cures it—14 cures for five English shillings. There are 50 million cases of yaws in the world now and a large proportion have little hope of help. Malaria kills 3 million people a year. Much worse, it reduces the productive capacity of scores of millions more. If 1,000 million dollars were now forthcoming, the World Health Organisation would be able to wipe out malaria for good and all. U.N.I.C.E.F. spends 66 per cent. of its meagre income in combating disease—half of that on malaria, 25 per cent. on maternity, 9 per cent. on nutrition; nothing on constructive, educational development work.
Measure the Bank's work against these figures I have given. Measure it also against the urgent economic needs of the


under-developed countries and the kind of thing that happens to them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham argued so well this afternoon, they are almost all in the category of nations who produce the primary products on which our Western industrial system depends. A fall in the price of those products, their only exports, hits them a devastating blow.
Mr. Hammarskjöld declares that—
… a fall of only 5 per cent. in the average of their export prices is approximately equivalent to the entire annual inflow of capital which they receive not from International Bank loans only, but from all other public and private loans and Government grants.
Five per cent.; and my right hon. Friend showed that the fall in 1957 had been 6 per cent. Let us take a few of the specific figures. Between the first and last quarter of 1957, the price of cereals fell from 104 to 93, a difference of 11 per cent.; sugar from 144 to 97, a fall of 47 per cent.; fats and oils from 106 to 94, a fall of 12 per cent.; wool from 125 to 93, a fall of 32 per cent.; metal ores from 101 to 92, a fall of 9 per cent. We have benefited by these falls; but as a result the under-developed countries are in a far worse situation than they were before. Their loss on their export prices much more than swallowed up all that they got from the International Bank and other sources.
In no foreseeable future can the work of the International Bank compensate for price fluctuations like these. If the under-developed countries are to make steady progress in their war on want, the other nations must help them by commodity agreements, which will in some degree stabilise the prices of the primary products which they sell. Everybody knows the difficulties of making such agreements; but every nation has a common interest in seeing that it is done, and not least Britain, three-fifths of whose exports go to the countries which produce the primary products.
No less important—perhaps more important—is the provision of capital to the under-developed countries in the form of grants in aid or non-interest-bearing loans; in other words, the creation of S.U.N.F.E.D. or something more ambitious still.
I have quoted Mr. Eugene Black on illiteracy, lack of administrative ability

and disease. One cannot provide education or a health service or basic rations by means of commercial interest-bearing loans; but these things are vital to the economic progress of these countries and, therefore, of the world. Without them the International Bank cannot really do its work. Its clients cannot usefully absorb the capital which they ought to have.
Let us remember the recent history of Europe. I spoke of the £200 million worth of loans given to Europe for reconstruction after 1945. At that time U.N.R.R.A. provided for Europe £1,400 million in grants in aid. I doubt whether the Bank loans would have been viable without the U.N.R.R.A. help. U.N.R.R.A. was followed by Marshall Aid of nearly £5,000 million, more than 12,000 million dollars, three times as great as the aid given by U.N.R.R.A., and going right on till 1952.
S.U.N.F.E.D. was intended to do the same thing for the under-developed countries, in the much more tragic circumstances in which they live. The first target proposed was 250 million dollars, a small sum compared with the colossal need. Our Government, alas, helped to kill it on the grounds of expense. They set up the International Finance Corporation instead to encourage private investment. I say nothing against it, but in the first two years of its work it has done business to the tune of 10½ million dollars only, and it is said that some of its charges may work out at up to 14 per cent.
The Government have now set up the Special Fund, another sop to take the place of S.U.N.F.E.D. The Special Fund has an initial sum of 25 million dollars. The Government have helped to keep the income of U.N. Technical Assistance at about 30 million dollars a year. U.N.I.C.E.F. has an income of £8½ million. This is playing with the subject. These new schemes—I.F.C. and the Special Fund—may be admirable, useful and right, but they are not really even the beginning of "the combination of measures" for which the Secretary-General has asked, measures which must, he said, be:
of an order of magnitude far beyond what has been so far undertaken.
Yet these measures must be taken, and taken without delay.
There are three main reasons which in my view should appeal with special force to hon. Members of this democratic House. The first is the economic challenge of the Communist régimes. The nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America have their eyes on Soviet Russia and China. Forty years ago Russia was a backward country, poverty-stricken. Today it is one of the leading industrial nations of the world. Its living standards are still well below those of this country or the United States. But it has got rid of the worst poverty which it used to know. Already its people are better clothed, fed and housed than they have ever been before. Mr. Mikoyan told me when I was in Moscow that the Russians will by 1965 lower prices by 10 per cent. from their present level, raise wages by 40 per cent., build 15 million new dwellings for the people and take a further burden off the workers by providing meals and clothing for the children. The Russians tell the under-developed nations that their system is the right way to end the poverty which those nations now endure.
The second reason is that it is our own vital interest that this frightful horror of world poverty should be ended. We need the food and primary products which the under-developed nations can produce. The more they can export the better for us. We need the enlargement of their markets which higher living standards will bring about, because, as I have said, three-fifths of our exports already go to them, and they should take a much larger proportion still.
The third reason is that this is a moral question which deeply concerns us all. It is wrong that two-thirds of the human race should live in misery and squalor which it is within the power of the Western nations to mitigate and finally to end. The Chancellor will forgive me, I am sure, if I say that I feel a deep sense of shame that we helped to kill the S.U.N.F.E.D. plan; that our contribution to U.N. Technical Assistance remains at the paltry sum of £800,000 a year; that our contribution to U.N.I.C.E.F., to the children who so sorely need our help, is even less, only 3 per cent, of its inadequate funds; while to the malaria fund of the World Health Organisation we have given nothing at all.
We welcome the Bill. We send our hearty greetings and congratulations to

Mr. Jacobssen and Mr. Eugene Black. But this is a tiny part of what we ought to do. On all grounds of moral and material interest we should be leaders in a worldwide war on want, and the time is coming soon when Britain will take up that rôle.

6.48 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The debate, although somewhat sparsely attended, has been a most interesting and constructive one. The hon. Members from both sides of the House who have spoken have made contributions which, while I may not be able to answer them adequately in my short reply, will be studied most carefully by my right hon. Friend and myself.
I was particularly moved by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) during his excellent exposition of the needs of the world and the inadequacy of our contribution. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have seen many of the underdeveloped countries of the world, and I am always aghast at the gap which exists between the living standards of Western Europe and the grinding poverty of the many millions of Asia and Africa, together with the diseases with which they are, unfortunately, harried.
We must remember that not only is there a limit to the amount which we can give to the various international agencies, but that unless we maintain a strong £ and a strong balance of payments situation, we will be unable to continue to make the subscriptions and donations and to organise the loans to which we are at present committed. Our first requirement must be to maintain a strong £ and confidence in sterling, and a good balance of payments situation. It is that requirement which my right hon. Friend has constantly before him. It is only when that requirement has been satisfied that we can move, albeit slowly, along the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley)— and other hon. Members referred to the subject—said that part of the trouble was that primary producing countries had suffered a severe fall in their income because of the fall in the prices of the commodities which they produced. He made the point that the fall in those earnings more


than outweighed the benefit of such loans and other aid as they had received. I do not dissent from that assertion, but one must remember that the one is a trading operation whereas the loans, particularly International Bank loans, are intended to be long-term capital financing operations.
In considering the changes in commodity prices, it must be remembered that some prices have fallen from excessively high levels, but, having said that, I must say that my right hon. Friend does not wish to see excessively low commodity prices prevailing. He does not believe that that is the best for Britain or for the countries concerned. He believes in a fair price and that reasonably stable prices are in the best interests of both the commodity producing countries and the highly industrialised exporting countries. Thanks to the improvement in our position, during 1958 we were able to make progress with the provision of Commonwealth Assistance Loans to Commonwealth producers.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham, the right hon. Member for Derby, South and the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) all referred to the Economic Development Institute. The experimental period proved to be successful and the Institute was established in Washington on a semi-permanent basis in 1957. Students have been nominated by a number of Commonwealth and other countries and reports indicate—and the experience of the hon. Lady bears it out—that the Institute is establishing itself as a worthwhile activity. One difficulty is that the newly developing countries, naturally, do not find it easy to spare many of the sort of officials most likely to benefit from a prolonged course at the Institute. So far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that the Institute's activities have been in any way curtailed for lack of the necessary funds.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham also mentioned loans for Commonwealth countries, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) referred to the same subject. The principal type of loan to independent Commonwealth countries is that from the London market, supplemented where appropriate by Commonwealth Assistance Loans, whereas for the Colonies there are various forms of assist-

ance, for example, the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, as well as market operations and the proposed system of Exchequer loans.
The International Bank, however, lends quite independently, but part of the loans come from our own 18 per cent. sterling subscription. Incidentally, most of that goes to the independent Commonwealth countries. It is worth mentioning how much of the International Bank loans in 1958 went to Commonwealth Territories. For example, India received a loan of £9 million for electric power, £30 million for her railways, and £15 million for her ports; Pakistan received £5 million for electric power; Ceylon, for the same purpose, £2½ million; South Africa, for railways, £9 million; the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, for railways, £7 million; Malaya, for electric power, £13 million; and Nigeria, for railways, £10, million. Those are all International Bank loans to Commonwealth countries in 1958.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell asked whether British trade was likely to benefit from these loans. The general principle of the Bank's lending operations is that borrowers should make the most economical use of the resources placed at their disposal. That leads the Bank generally to favour international tenders as the best means of deciding where contracts should be placed. Generally speaking, the Bank tries to lend currencies which the borrower is likely to require. In addition to the sterling released to the Bank from the United Kingdom's 18 per cent. Subscription—more than half of the total of the £83·6 million—and in addition to the £10 million raised in the London market by bond issue, the Bank has bought a cumulative total of £77 million with dollars and E.P.U. currencies in order to lend to its borrowers—that was up to the end of December last year. That means that United Kingdom exporters have enjoyed opportunities for exports far in excess of the amount of sterling released to the Bank by the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell also drew attention to page 2 of the White Paper and referred to the drawing of 561 million dollars. He suggested that that sum was all our own dollars which we were merely getting back,


although getting them back under conditions of stringency. The right hon. Member for Derby, South raised a somewhat similar point. The facts are that of the 1956 drawing, 236 million dollars was our original gold subscription. The remaining 325 million dollars was our first tranche of credit, that is to say, 1,300 million dollars—the amount of our quota—divided by four. In respect of this credit tranche drawing, we had paid into the Fund the equivalent in sterling of 325 million dollars, which had been lent back to us. What we got was cash dollars from the Fund, so the sum represented a valuable accession of dollars to us at a time when they were very much needed.
My hon. Friend also suggested that terms and conditions were imposed on us.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Are my calculations on the 1956 transaction with the Fund correct?

Mr. Erroll: I was trying to get to that point. Broadly speaking, the point made by the right hon. Gentleman is correct. The servicing arrangements are somewhat complicated, because the longer the loan is outstanding, the higher the interest rate becomes, in the case of the International Monetary Fund. When we repay the 200 million dollars by the end of April this year, that will substantially reduce our interest commitments.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am sorry to interrupt again. Are we paying interest on the drawing of 561 million dollars? I understood that we paid a service charge of ½ per cent. when the drawing was made, but that we did not pay interest on that drawing unless the Bank held more sterling than our quota of 1,300 million dollars. However, I cannot find from the White Paper what the Fund does.

Mr. Erroll: I do not think that I can at this moment give an exact answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I will see what I can do to help him.
The position is that we pay the charges annually, rising as the years go on. At present, we pay at the rate of 3 per cent. on the first credit tranche only. This means a charge of just under 10 million dollars, or £3½ million a year. This would gradually increase, but one advantage of repayment, as I said, is that

this will largely be removed. All will be removed when the quota is increased because the outstanding drawing will then be a smaller proportion of the quota as a whole.
As regards annual charges, the stand-by charge is ¼ per cent. on 739 million dollars. The initial charge on drawing was ½ per cent. on the 561 million dollars: this was a once-for-all payment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for the courtesy he has shown to my speech, but I thought that he did say he was going to deal with the question of conditions.

Mr. Erroll: I should like to have dealt with the conditions a little more, but I am just running over my time already, and I do not think that I shall be able to do so.
I did wish to deal with one point raised by several hon. Gentlemen about the interest rates charged. The rates are based on the current cost to the International Bank of borrowing, and they are at present 5¾ per cent., including the statutory commission, which is 1 per cent. The period of fifteen to twenty years is normal, but nothing is absolutely fixed. The right hon. Member for Derby, South admitted that he saw the strength behind the present system, but he suggested that there might be scope for some changes in the years to come. I am quite certain that those suggestions will be looked at with the care they deserve.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East referred to the special reserve of the International Bank. There is not a great deal I can say about that. Obviously, the Bank must follow a fairly conservative policy in building up its reserves. Otherwise, it might fail to command the required degree of confidence in its potential lenders, without which it would be unable to borrow the very large sums of money required for the under-developed countries. The special reserve, therefore, seems to be a reasonable precaution to take in the circumstances.
I should not like to bring my remarks to a close without referring to the most interesting remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), who outlined in a wide-ranging speech the many facets of the problem of lending to the under-developed countries. He


very fully explained to the House a set of conditions which, I think, are well worth study. I found his remarks on publicity particularly worth while. We might all take those remarks away with us and, perhaps, remember to tell our constituents something about these larger issues which we have debated this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend appreciates particularly the helpful and constructive tone of the debate and he hopes that the House will accordingly give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. R. Chichester-Clark.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL BANK AND MONETARY FUND [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees.)

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of this Session to enable effect to be given to proposed increases in the quotas of the International Monetary Fund and in the capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the sums required for the purpose of paying, in connection with the proposed increases, any subscriptions to the International Monetary Fund and any amounts payable to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;
(b)the borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939, and payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing any sums to be so paid or for replacing any sums so paid.—[Mr. Amory.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

MALTA (LETTERS PATENT) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

7.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as the House knows, has returned from Aden, but he is at this moment engaged in the discussions on Cyprus. We have had a very full discussion on the principle underlying the Bill, and I am sure that the House will understand and approve my right hon. Friend's absence from our debate this evening. He feels bound to give his whole mind and time to the very vital discussions on Cyprus which are now taking place.
I made a full speech, as did my right hon. Friend, during the Second Reading debate. I shall not trouble the House at this stage with any further expresesion of my views. With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and by leave of the House, I shall endeavour, at the conclusion of the debate, to reply to any points which may be raised by hon. Members.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: The House will understand the reasons for the Secretary of State's absence during the concluding stages of our consideration of the Bill. We fully understand and appreciate that there are other calls upon his time. At the beginning of a week in which we shall see, I hope, the settlement of the Cyprus question which has been a matter of controversy, concern, and regret for us all, when the future of Cyprus looks like being settled in a way satisfactory to everyone concerned, it is most regrettable that a retrograde step should be taken with regard to another island in the Mediterranean which has long been associated with us. I hope that one thing at any rate will be borne in mind in all our considerations, namely, that it is very dangerous for Cyprus, for Malta or for anywhere else to use the term "Never" when we speak of these constitutional matters.
During the Second Reading debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and I. supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends who had served on the Round Table Conference on the Maltese problem, joined in an appeal to the Government that they should withdraw the Bill. The effect of the Bill is to revoke and bring to an end the 1947 Constitution and return to rule by Governor and Council, to what I then described as the first form of colonial rule.
We asked the Government to withdraw the Bill. The immediate effect of their doing so would be that the Governor would be under an obligation to recall the Maltese Parliament at some time between now and the third or fourth week of April. We believe that if the Maltese Parliament were recalled the Maltese themselves might discuss the situation which has now arisen. We believe that the Government should make an effort also to elicit once more the help of every side of the House, either by reconstituting the Round Table Conference or in some other way in order to find before the end of April some better solution for the Maltese problem than what is embodied in the Bill.
I am sorry that the Government did not listen to our plea. We hear very often in this House about bi-partisanship in Colonial policy. Here was a splendid example of all parties in the House collaborating together in a sincere effort to find a solution of this problem might have met the desires and aspirations of the people of Malta, secured the interests of the people of this country and enabled an association of 150 years between us and the people of Malta to continue in terms of amity and friendship. The Government rejected that plea.
I said then that unless the Government were prepared to listen to the plea, accept it and make another effort to try to find a happier solution of this problem, we should have no alternative but to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I said then that we should regret having to do that, but that it was our plain duty to do it since we believed that the step taken by the Government was the wrong step in any solution of the Malta problem and might make, although we hoped not, the final solution more difficult than it was before.
One of the reasons that we did not discuss the matter on Committee stage was because it is a simple Bill which gives the power to free the Government entirely from the obligation laid upon them in the 1947 Constitution and, therefore, clears the way for what they have to do when this Bill becomes, if it does, an Act of Parliament. I hope that even now, at the last stage of this nearly twelfth hour, the Government will be prepared to take back the Bill and seek another solution. I am sure that is the right thing for them to do. If the Government decide to go on with the Bill and press it to Third Reading later this evening, I ought to tell the House that it will be our duty on Third Reading, as on Second Reading, to vote against the Bill, and take no part in the solution which the Government this day, by their own act, are seeking for the Maltese problem.
I hope that when the hon. Gentleman comes to reply to the debate—and I am sure that he will have the leave of the House for which he has asked to take further part in the debate—he will answer some of the questions which I want to put to him and which I know some of my hon. Friends will be putting to him in the course of the debate.
Before I come to the questions, I must refer to the fact that since the Second Reading debate the retirement of the present Governor, Sir Robert Laycock, has been announced. I feel on personal and other grounds very deep regret indeed that the period of Governorship of Sir Robert Laycock should come to an end in this unhappy way. He was Governor when I visited Malta, for the only time in my life, as a member of the Round Table Conference. He was most helpful to us in every possible way. I felt then and I think that he felt at that time that it might have been his very great privilege during his period as Governor to see a new chapter open up in the history of Malta and the relationship of the people of Malta to ourselves.
I think that I am not giving away any secrets when I say that the proposals we put forward or some such proposals, were proposals which his own experience had convinced him would provide the right solution for Malta. I pay tribute to the services that he rendered and express very great regret indeed that he should


be leaving Malta in these very unhappy circumstances.
A new Governor has been appointed and I do not envy him his task. The first question which I want to put is this. Is it proposed that the new form of Government by Governor and Council is to be introduced immediately or is it to wait until the new Governor takes up his position somewhat later this year?
Secondly, we understand from the statement made on behalf of the Government in this House and in the final statement issued in the last two or three months that what is proposed is that the Governor shall be assisted by a Council. That Council is to be composed in part of official members and in part by unofficial members drawn from among the people of Malta. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able, when he replies, to tell us something more about the composition of this Council.
First, what official members are to be appointed to the Council to advise the Governor? Secondly—and this is very important— I hope that if the Government are determined to go on with this plan, as it seems they are, they will realise that in the political situation in Malta the choice of unofficial members drawn from the Maltese to be members of the Council can have very important political significance. I am being very plain and frank about this because it is very important. I said in the course of the Second Reading debate that one of the reasons—not the only one—why the last conference held in this country failed was because the Government insisted on bringing representatives of a party into the discussion which had failed to secure a single representative on the Maltese Legislative Council. It is very important for us to try to understand the matter from their standpoint.
It was quite clear that they regarded this as an affront. Objections were raised by the Maltese Labour Party of Mr. Mintoff and his colleagues and also by the Nationalist Party because they felt that this was a conference to consider the future of Malta and the only people entitled to be present were those representatives of parties in the Maltese Parliament who had been able to secure election by the votes of the people of Malta.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that

during the referendum which took place in Malta 20,000 people in Malta supported the view of the political party to which he is referring.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not denying that, but however many supported it, it did not have a single member in the Legislative Assembly. The Maltese representatives took the view that at this conference the representation should be of those parties which had representatives in the Assembly. To draw a parallel situation in this country, there are other parties not represented in this House of Commons by votes. Supposing we were to consider the future of the House of Commons, would the hon. Gentleman call into those consultations parties because they ran candidates and had votes but were unable to secure representation? I sat on a Speaker's Conference to consider the future electoral laws of this country which consisted of Members drawn from this House. Would any hon. Member have thought it right for Mr. Speaker to invite some other parties, which shall be nameless for the moment but which had fought elections and not won them? What would have been said then? Let us remember that this is how the Maltese feel. I think that was a mistake.
I would ask the Under-Secretary whether it is proposed to appoint representatives on the Governor's Council from people who are actively engaged in the minority parties in Malta. I am putting this because it is an important matter. I therefore beg him to realise that if the Governor's Council is appointed it will look as if the Government have favoured some parties as against others. If they do that, I feel sure that there will be a Governor's Council, however long it lasts which will be regarded—and this is what matters—by the Maltese people as being composed of the Governor and stooges of the British Government. That, I hope, is the last thing that any of us would want in Malta.
The second question is a most important one and I would direct the attention of the Under-Secretary of State and the Government to it. The Government themselves said that they regarded this step as an interim Constitution. That would be the right word. They regarded it as a purely temporary expedient for, to quote the words of the Secretary of State "a relatively short


time". It is presumably to be followed by another effort to restore representative Government to Malta. How short is this period to be, and do the Government propose to take the initiative? If so, when? It is clear that if the Government are determined to take this step, the shorter this lasts the better. We shall not get the people of Malta to go on for any length of time under a Constitution in which they have no voice, and in which all those who are of representative character have no say at all.
If this is to be a temporary expedient for a very short time, how do the Government see the future? Have the Government thought about once more seeking the help of this House to settle this problem? Do they contemplate recalling the Round Table Conference and discussing such changes in Government and otherwise as have taken place since then? Do they propose any kind of constitutional conference? How do they contemplate approaching this problem? What steps do they propose to take? I hope that we shall get answers to these questions, because the matter is very important.
What ought we to say to Malta? When we end the Third Reading of the Bill we shall divide, and, when we have decided, that will be the end of the 1947 Constitution. There will be no Parliament in Malta. There will be a Governor and a Council, but political activity and agitation will go on with no constitutional medium through which to express itself. How dangerous this is anywhere; but how dangerous it can be in Malta.
I join with my hon. and right hon. Friends in wishing to send a message to the people of Malta that we hope that, in the trying circumstances, leaders as well as followers will take no step which might lead to violence. The lesson of Cyprus will be with us all. It is that, in the end, we have to come to a settlement round the table and find a way. Not only will the Maltese not be content to go on living under Governor's rule with a Council for any length of time, but they will not go on living under Colonial status.
This is vitally important. I do not think that anyone will disagree with that, not even the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), who was a member

of the Conference and who expressed his disagreement in his Minority Report. I do not think he will deny that we learned that there was an almost universal desire among the people of Malta for the end of colonial status and for a constitution in which they would enjoy another status. Nothing has happened to change that; indeed, I think anti-colonial feeling is stronger now than when we went there three years ago. There is a desire for a status other than colonial status and it is deeper and stronger, and would be expressed with greater resolve and determination, than it was to us.
I hope that we shall send a message. I propose to say what we should say to the people of Malta now. We should send a message from here. If we could withdraw the Bill and could discuss the message we could send it as a Parliament, but we cannot speak as a House of Commons and still pass the Bill. I say, for my hon. and right hon. Friends to the people of Malta that we understand their desire to end Colonial status and that we accept this as our policy as much as theirs. It it our desire to work with them and in co-operation with them towards this end, and to cooperate with them through their elected representatives, elected by the people of Malta to express their views and their desires.
Many stall hold the view that in the special circumstances of Malta the best way by which their desire for a new status and for continued association with this country could be ensured was, and still is, on the basis of the proposal for integration made at the Round Table Conference. Nothing that has happened since has changed my view that that would be the best solution. It may be at the moment that that solution is not desired by the people of Malta, but I hope that in a period of time we could recapture something of the spirit of three years ago and that that might still be a possibility. I would not want to say anything to suggest that integration is dead. It is still a possibility, and, speaking for myself, I hope that it will be more than a possibility for the future.
In the end it is for the Maltese people themselves to decide. It may be that having regard to the experiences of the


past twelve or eighteen months, integration is not now on the agenda and it may not be on the agenda in two or three years' time. Let us be clear about the alternative. If the people of Malta are determined to end their colonial status and if we agree that it should end, the only alternative to integration is some form of independence. We cannot escape that alternative. Malta ought to be independent within the Commonwealth, but we cannot set our strategic interests against the demands of people for political in dependence. At the end we have to try to reconcile both. The great difficulty over the proposals for integration was to reconcile our interests with the needs, the desires and the demands of the people of Malta. In the end it is for them to decide and not for us.
The Under-Secretary of State is beginning his career at the Colonial Office. I had a short and very exciting period there. He knows that the initiative in colonial affairs does not now rest with this House; it has passed from us to the people in the Colonies. It is important to realise that. This is the lesson of all that has happened in the past few years. Everywhere is the spirit of nationalism, the desire for self-realisation, the desire to stand on equal terms with us. It is growing everywhere and is far too powerful to be ignored and resisted. It is an elemental, dynamic force, one of the great forces that change the face of the world.
Earlier we were speaking about the under-developed countries, and their desire to end Western domination and attain a standard of life equal to that of the West. There is a revolt against colonial rule and against poverty. If we do not take the right steps this can become a revolt against us. Our job is to make it not a revolt of their people against our people, but a joint revolt against conditions, a joint working together towards common ends and the nationalist spirit in the wider sense, but not of the Nationalist Party in Malta. The vast majority of them are determined to live on equal terms with us.
What will Malta say when it gets this Measure this week? Let us look at the situation. Here is an old country with its ancient, hallowed history in the heart of the homeland of our civilisation. Shortly Singapore will be registering the

next step towards elections and independence. Nigeria is to have independence in 1960. Cyprus will become an independent republic, we gather from the Press. Let us hope that we are on the way to a settlement there. God speed those who are trying to settle that problem. What is the message we send to Malta? It is, "Back you go to colonial rule, to be ruled by a Governor with a few nominated people."
Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us how many of the Colonies still left in the remains of the British Empire are still in that stage? With very few exceptions, if any at all, they have an elected element. They are all on the march towards independence and self-government and we believe and hope it will be independence in the British Commonwealth.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: All except two British Protectorates in South Africa.

Mr. Griffiths: I agree, but I hope that we shall take early steps to set them on the road. What is the message we send to this ancient country in the heart of the homeland of our civilisation? What a tragedy it is. We discussed and went through the sorry history of the negotiations in the last debate and I do not propose to go over it again. All I say to the Government is, "You have taken this step; you have taken it yourselves. We and the Liberal Party—

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Speak up, let us hear the right hon. Member.

Mr. Griffiths: We suggested to the Government that they should withdraw the Bill and that together we should find a happy solution. They turned that down on Second Reading. I repeat our readiness to join with them if they withdraw the Bill. If they do not, we cannot join with them in passing it. I hope that we can send the people of Malta the message that this stage will be one of short duration and that we shall take up the problem—where we left it—of providing a solution which will give them a dignity to which they are entitled.

7.34 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: With so much of what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)


said I find myself in such complete agreement that I fee] all the more sorry that he has announced the determination of the party opposite to divide the House when so much that he said was just pushing against an open door.
The right hon. Gentleman will find on these benches, as on his, the sentiment reechoed that we want to see every one of our Colonies advancing into self-governing Dominions within the Commonwealth. We would echo almost every word of the message he suggested that the House should send to Malta. I believe that we echo his regret that this is not a bipartisan approach. But whose fault is that? I assure him that he will not find in the Conservative Party any reactionaries who glorify colonial rule, or who pretend that to give people good government is any better than to give them self-government. We fought a civil war for that very purpose more than 300 years ago. The period from 1629 to 1640 was one of the most prosperous that this country has had. But Parliament preferred not to turn our Constitution into an imitation of the French monarchy, but to run the risks of remaining a democratic institution.
That makes it all the more strange that the right hon. Member should divide the House on such flimsy grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I intend to show that in my speech. Some of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were flimsy, such as saying that bringing Miss Strickland's party caused the breakdown.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I did not say that. I said that it was because one of the parties said that it would not sit jointly as representatives with the other party.

Sir G. Nicholson: I know that the general approach of the right hon. Gentleman to this problem is sincere, but if the other two parties had genuinely wanted to settle the question would that have stood in their way for half a second? Adding that flimsy pretext weakened the case of the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman's main case, and the case of the Opposition as a whole, is that the right thing to do is not to suspend the Constitution of Malta, but to recall the Maltese parliament in April. How can we recall that Parliament if no party is willing to form a Government? If no party is willing to play, neither Mr. Mintoff, Dr. Borg Olivier, nor anyone

else, what is the good of calling the Maltese Parliament together? It would be sheer chaos, and the state of Malta would be worse than it is now. I cannot avoid the conclusion that there have been ulterior political motives in the opposition of the Labour Party to this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that in all sincerity, because their attitude towards Malta up to now has been exceedingly high principled and bipartisan.
I deeply regret that hon. Members opposite should have taken this line. Their ostensible reasons for dividing the House just will not hold water. After all, we have to take some steps to see that the ordinary machinery of government and law and order and of public administration go on functioning in Malta. If the Government withdrew the Bill, and left everything to April, the Maltese Parliament would be assembled and no party would be willing to take responsibility and the reins of government. I should not envy the position of the Governor on those terms. I was glad that the right hon. Member paid tribute to Sir Robert Laycock. He is an old friend of mine, and I am certain that he is heart-broken at the turn events have taken. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will join with the right hon. Member in thanking Sir Robert for what he has done.
I do not propose to make a long speech, because there is very little that can be said. We can express our deep regret at what is a retrograde step. We can express deep regret at the non-cooperative attitude of the Maltese parties, but, having said that, what is there but platitudes? I believe the people of Malta are in no doubt whatever that every party in the House regards this as a step backwards and that we hope it may be of short duration.
I have two things of more significance to say to my hon. Friends. First, there must be no parsimony. There must be no parsimony towards the new Governor and the new Administration. That is of most vital importance. I do not think that in saying that I can be accused of saying that I wish the coming form of colonial rule to wean the Maltese away from their constitutional aspirations. Nothing is further from my thoughts and I should be very sorry if it took place.
But it is our duty to the people of Malta to ensure that every effort is made to see


that the industrial and economic future of Malta is not hamstrung and hampered by Colonial Office or Treasury parsimony. The future of Malta depends not only on the constitutional co-operation of its inhabitants, but on the inducements that that island may offer for industrial development, within the dockyard, or anywhere else. Parsimony now might be fatal to that development.
Secondly, we must not let things drift. Just because it is a distasteful subject, one that causes all of us the greatest regret, we must not put it out of our minds after the passage of this Bill. Some people say that we should allow an indefinite period to elapse to let things settle down. Here I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelly; they will not settle down. There may be a certain amount of passivity, but, once the spirit of nationalism, which I salute and admire, has bitten deep into the soul of a people it cannot die. I agree again with the right hon. Member that it is our duty to find a formula or constitution by which all conflicting interests can be reconciled as soon as possible.
I repeat, I deeply regret that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite propose to divide the House. I believe that they are doing no service to Malta, to the possibility of a bipartisan approach, or to the long-term interests of the Maltese people. I very greatly regret the necessity for the Bill, but there is no other alternative before the Government and the House.
Finally, in common with the right hon. Gentleman, I reiterate my conviction that integration is the ultimate solution.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: It is difficult to follow the logic of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson). On several occasions, he told us that he was overwhelmed with regret and grief for the people of Malta. He has said that the Bill is a backward and retrograde step; nevertheless, he thinks that we on this side are wrong to register our protest against it. With one point, however, I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, namely, that the future of Malta now depends largely on industrial development and, in particular, the future of the dockyard.
The Under-Secretary of State has kindly undertaken to answer at the end of the debate any questions which we may put to him. He will recall that during the Second Reading debate I put several questions to him to which he did not answer on that occasion. I do not blame him for that. I know that it is difficult to answer in half an hour a debate which has gone on for several hours, and, of course, I had not given him notice of the questions which I raised on that occasion. However, fourteen days have elapsed, and I hope that in the interval the hon. Gentleman has been able to find the answers to those questions, which are causing great concern to many people in Malta.
I refer in particular to the future of the dockyard. On Second Reading, which I think was a fortnight today, I asked the hon. Gentleman whether, when the dockyard was transferred from the Admiralty to the firm of C. and H. Bailey, any other shipping firm had been approached. I asked whether tenders had been asked for. I asked him whether it was not a fact that a British admiral had been released from the Service in order to take charge of what will now be a commercial dockyard. If that is so, we should like to know the particular significance of it, because it is being said in Malta, rightly or wrongly, that the Government want to have it both ways; the Government want to play safe; the British Government wish to relieve themselves of their responsibilities to the dockyard but nevertheless have appointed, or caused Messrs. C. and H. Bailey to appoint, an admiral to take charge of a civilian dockyard so that if at any moment an emergency should arise and the Admiralty should require the dockyard to be a naval establishment again the admiral can so have arranged things that the alterations made will not be of such a radical character as to prevent the dockyard being reconverted to a naval establishment.
It has also been alleged that before the resignation of the Mintoff Government other shipping firms thought that Malta would be an excellent place for them to carry out their repairs, and they were willing at their own expense to build two new dockyards at Valetta, the building of which would have entailed an expenditure of about £2 million. It has been alleged that these firms, during the


crisis, when there was no Maltese Government and when the Maltese Parliament was not sitting, were approached and told, "You need not spend all this money. The dockyard will be transferred to a British firm. Why not transfer your custom to the British firm once it has been transferred to them?" If that is the case, it is a very disturbing allegation.
I should like a plain "Yes" or "No" to the question whether any shipping firms, British or Norwegian, which had previously been in touch with the Mintoff Government, will have any share in the development of the C. & H. Bailey dockyard at Valetta. These questions are important because—and this is all I shall say on the point, but I want to get the aircleared—there are people in Malta who have said that this political crisis, which we all deplore, was deliberately prolonged by the British Government in order to effect the transfer of the naval dockyard to a British private commercial firm.
It is said that had the Maltese Government been in existence at the time the Admiralty would have been obliged to consult the Maltese Government. It has always been regarded as normal that when land in Malta was not required for defence purposes it should be handed back to the people and the Government of Malta. People are wondering why the dockyard has not been handed back to the people of Malta. They wonder, as I have said, whether the political crisis was deliberately prolonged so that there would not be a Maltese Government to whom the dockyard could be handed.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will do his best to answer these questions which have caused agitation not only in the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, but in the minds of very good people in Malta.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) has emphasised the economic importance of the dockyard, and has described to the House the doubts which he has had. I have recently been to the island, but I heard nothing to confirm the doubts which he has expressed. The Admiral was appointed because he was one of the most popular officers ever to serve in the dockyard, one who knows the personnel well and works very well with them.

Mr. Delargy: I do not know with what attention the House will listen to the hon. Member on the subject of Malta. I remember his Second Reading speech. He had then recently returned from Malta, and he said that he had sounded opinion all over the place and gave us his solemn guarantee that the strike which was to take place the following day would be a complete flop, whereas, as a matter of fact, it was a complete success.

Mr. Wall: I propose to deal with that point in my speech. The hon. Member will find that it was somewhat of a flop when I quote the figures to him. The fact that Baileys have taken over the dockyard is an excellent thing. Surely it is better that a small firm, which will make Malta's dockyard its main aim and object, should take over the dockyard than that it should be placed in the hands of some enormous combine which has interests all over the Commonwealth.
Complaint has been made that foreign firms were not allowed to tender for the dockyard. Surely it is not suggested that Italian firms should be allowed to tender? Is it suggested that they would allow Malta to compete with Genoa or Trieste? I feel convinced—and I am sure the hon. Member for Thurrock will agree with me—that the success of Messrs. Bailey is vital to Malta, and any rumours which mitigate against that success will only do harm to the future of the Maltese people as well as to Anglo-Maltese relations.
The Bill ends the 1947 Constitution. Although both sides of the House cannot agree with the content of the Bill, they can probably agree in not regretting the passing of this Constitution. It was criticised by the Round Table Conference; it caused considerable trouble before Mr. Mintoff assumed power. When Dr. Borg Olivier was Prime Minister, he had considerable trouble with the British Government because of this Constitution.
This is largely because of the difficulty of running a diarchy, and of knowing where reserved subjects, such as defence, end, and Maltese subjects, such as agriculture, start. It was a bad Constitution, because it provided inadequate consultative machinery between the Maltese and the Government of this country and I think that the House should be very pleased that it has now been abandoned.
While not regretting the passing of this Constitution, we can probably all agree in deploring the reasons for its passing. We can deplore the Resolution passed in the Maltese Parliament in December, 1957; the failure of the Opposition to take over when Mr. Mintoff resigned; the April riots; the London Conference, at which the three parties would not agree to sit round the same table; and, finally, Mr. Mintoff's change-over from integration to a demand for independence.
During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, I said that I did not believe that Mr. Mintoff had any mandate for independence, and that the Maltese people would not follow him in this demand. The hon. Member for Thurrock has challenged me about the day of mourning, which was to follow our Second Reading debate. The final figures for that day showed that 47 per cent. of Government employees were absent from their work. At the dockyard, 90 per cent. of the industrial workers were absent—as was, perhaps, to be expected —but only 8 per cent. of non-industrial personnel. Only 16 school teachers out of 2,000 were absent from the schools, but about 70 per cent. of school children attending the primary and secondary schools were absent.
One can, therefore, say that it was a somewhat of a fifty-fifty result, but it must be remembered that Mr. Mintoff did not say to the Maltese people, "Do not go to work." He said, "Stay in your houses. Fly your flags at half-mast. Drape crepe round the windows." Even in Valletta, where everyone was walking around in the streets, there was very little evidence of flags flying at half-mast, or other signs of mourning. There was a carnival atmosphere—people having a good time—although the children were not going to school because their parents were not sure that the riots of April would not be repeated.
In passing, I must say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that it seems unfortunate that Service schools, such as the Royal Naval School, should have set such a bad example as to close on the day of mourning. That is something that he might look into. It was not a good example to be set by a Service school in a fortress.
The second test of strength was the pre-Lent carnival, which Mr. Mintoff told his followers to boycott. I am informed, and all the Press supports the view, that that carnival was one of the greatest successes ever, and went off extremely well. All I have to add on this subject is that Mr. Mintoff is a sick man. One can only hope that he will do as, in one speech, he said he would—decide to take a rest.
The Maltese people know that independence would mean neutralism; a political status similar to that resulting from joining with Tito or Nasser, and an economic status similar to that of Jordan's. It would mean no dockyard at all, and no economic help from Britain. Malta has always been a bastion of Western civilisation, and would, I am sure, wish to remain with the Christian West in the future.
If independence is out, what happens next? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has already asked this. He has said that this interim period, if it can be called that, must be short, and with that I heartily agree. I hope that the Government will remember the strength of nationalism in the world; and that the Maltese people are a very proud and patriotic race. Once we pass this Bill, Her Majesty's Government will be in complete charge of the affairs of Malta for a short time—I hope for not more than twelve months, or eighteen months at the outside. I hope that, during that time, they will give the Governor sufficient personnel and money to do the job properly and that the Governor will have the resources necessary to enable him to keep in touch with the people of Malta—

Mr. J. Griffiths: I did not refer to the economic situation, though not because I think it unimportant. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but, though we must find the money, the Government must realise how important it is that we must not appear to be more generous to Governor's than to Maltese rule.

Mr. Wall: I fully take that point, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but when Malta has what he himself, has referred to as the lowest form of colonial Government, it is essential for the Governor, who is exercising the responsibility, to keep in touch with the people,


and to explain to them why certain things are being done. He can do that by broadcasting. I hope, too, that we will introduce television. I have to say to my right hon. Friend that there are television sets in Malta, but that the only programme they can get is the Italian one. Malta is in the Commonwealth. The people are bilingual. They speak English, and could well do with some English television broadcasts from within Malta itself.
The problem of the Advisory Council has been mentioned. I hope that the political parties will be asked to be represented on it, even though they may not wish so to be. I hope that, until there is a new, elected Government in the island, there will be no changes in taxation without representation—

Sir Peter Agnew: My hon. Friend speaks of no changes in taxation. Does he mean by that that for firms wishing to establish themselves there should be no fresh arrangements for tax holidays, in the meantime, to encourage them?

Mr. Wall: I was referring to personal taxation but it is a matter that I propose to develop later.
I hope that the Governor will have talks with the Maltese people, through the Advisory Council or anyone else, with a view to the earliest possible establishment of a new constitution; and that those talks will start, if not this year at least in 1960, so that Malta may govern herself again as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Thurrock spoke of the importance of the economy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) has just mentioned a tax holiday. A very interesting paper has just been written about Malta by Sir George Dowty, in which he suggests that the way ahead for Malta is to stabilise the political scene, set up a progressive organisation that would encourage and help the industrialists, and then the economy should be reorganised as has been done in Puerto Rico by the Americans. Perhaps the House will bear with me while I expound on that theory.
Fifteen years ago, the island of Puerto Rico, belonging to the United States, presented such an economic problem as was thought to be insoluble. Like Malta,

Puerto Rico depends on only one industry—in this case, sugar. It is administered as a diarchy. Its people are bilingual. It is over-populated, and lacks adequate water, power and communications. The plan put into effect in Puerto Rico cost some £300 million. Allowing for the difference in the size of population, a similar plan for Malta would cost about £40 million.
The essence of the plan was twofold: Government help, where necessary, and an income tax holiday for ten years for firms establishing themselves on the island. The results have been astonishing. Since the tax holiday, Puerto Rico's public tax revenue has risen from £10 million to £70 million, and the island now owes the United States Treasury practically nothing. The per capita net income has increased by 73 per cent. Perhaps of even greater interest, the island is now self-governing, except in defence, foreign affairs and external trade.
I am sure that that picture is one which the whole House would like to see repeated in the George Cross island in the middle of the Mediterranean. I contend that if this economic help could succeed in Puerto Rico, it can succeed in Malta. Malta has great advantages. It has a deep-water harbour. There is a dockyard already in existence, and we have already started building a civil harbour. Malta has skilled workers, and is situated in exactly the right place to develop markets on the North African coast—which is developing every day—and in the Middle East.
I believe that the island should be given reasonable grants and loans, and, even more important, given a ten-year tax holiday to allow industry to become established. I should like to know whether that could be done under the Maltese Aids to Industry Act—Malta could then be built as a civilian economy as opposed to the present defence economy which now provides about 50 per cent. of its income.
The Report I have referred to ended by saying that success for this new economic structure depends on political stability. I hope that the House will bear with me another moment if I just develop this theme. Having abolished the Maltese Constitution by passing this Bill, we enter an interim period during which we have to think of the future. I suggest the


future is one of three alternatives. We have ruled out independence. There is integration, which many hon. Members on both sides of this House would still support, but which one must accept as unpopular in many quarters in Malta and in certain quarters in this country.
Then there is Dominion status. Dominion status has always been ruled out because it has been said that little Malta could never be equal to, for instance, Canada or Australia, and yet, as has already been said from the Front Bench opposite, we are now discussing the possibility of some such arrangement for the Island of Cyprus. One does not know, but if one is to believe the Press and Cyprus is to be an independent republic within the Commonwealth, then, if it is possible for Cyprus, it may be that in the future some such arrangement may be possible for Malta.
It seems to me, however, that the best alternative is what has been termed the Royal State of Malta, which, as I understand, means complete internal self-government under the Home Office or Commonwealth Relations Office. It means a special status for Malta with far better consultative machinery than existed under the Constitution which will end when this Bill becomes an Act. It means, I trust, that Malta will be included among the British islands—not the British Isles—like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and that the Maltese will be treated as British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom, which would, of course, be an enormous help to Maltese who may wish to emigrate. Those are three alternatives which, it seems to me, must be considered during the next year or eighteen months when the new, advanced constitution of Malta is being discussed.
When this new constitution comes into effect, one hopes—and I think that hon. Members opposite will join me in this—that it will see the introduction of an independent broadcasting system; that it will see the introduction of a police commission and a public service commission; that it will see the Auditor General put in a position in which he is not subject to political control; that it will see that financial assistance to the university will be channelled through non-political sources; and that it will see that emigration will be fully encouraged. I think

we can join together in all these desires, and I would suggest, as I believe I did in my Second Reading speech, that consideration be given to the re-creation, if I may put it in that way, of a second House, a senate, in Malta.
Hon. Members on both sides have joined in praising Sir Robert Laycock. Whatever the Maltese Labour Party may feel about him as Governor of Malta, I am quite certain that its members respect him as a man who has tried to do his best for the island. I think that the message which goes out from this House is one of good wishes and of thanks for what he has tried to do even though, unfortunately, the end of his term of office in Malta comes at what is a rather unhappy time, when we are debating the suspension of the Constitution.
I think that the House would also wish to join with me in welcoming Sir Robert's successor, Admiral Sir Guy Grantham. Admiral Grantham is excellently suited for the post of Governor of the island. He has been Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean. He knows the N.A.T.O. set-up. What is far more important, he knows the Maltese people, and they know him. I have been in Malta when Sir Guy and Lady Grantham were there, and I can assure the House that they are greatly respected already, I believe that they will come to be loved by the Maltese people during their term of office. We can all say to the new Governor that we hope that his term of office will prove, at any rate in its constitutional aspect, a happier one than that of his predecessor.
I conclude by hoping that it will not be long before we are again debating in this House Malta's affairs, and that, when we do, it will be in a far happier context.

8.4 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: This is indeed an unhappy occasion. As one of the back benchers who watched with admiration the efforts of the Round Table Conference of hon. Members on both sides to deal with this problem of Malta I should like to pay tribute to the good will, skill and statesmanship which went into those efforts.
I am certain, however, that all the members of the Round Table Conference, of all three parties in the House, must regret the step the Government are taking tonight. It is a pity that we should


have to divide the House on this issue, but, believing as we do, we can do nothing else. The responsibility is the Government's. I would echo the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) even at this late stage and ask the Government to refrain from taking a step which we believe is not in the interests of a good settlement, and to withdraw the Bill.
I intervene briefly in the debate because a few weeks ago I spent some five hours with Dom Mintoff and most of his Cabinet of Ministers who were over here kicking their heels in London when it ought to have been possible for the Colonial Secretary to have reached out to negotiate with this young, little Parliamentary majority and its Ministers. I want to convey one or two impressions I got from talks in which I tried to put to them many of the things which have been put again and again during the past two years.
The first impression I got from them was one of utter friendship for this country. Prime Minister Mintoff and the other Ministers, one of whom has been in gaol for political offences, expressed unqualified friendship for the British people. I am certain that members of the Government must express, even as they take this lamentable step tonight, the same friendship and admiration which we have held for the Maltese ever since the glorious part which Malta played when she earned her George Cross, and long before.
The second impression I got leads me to underline what my right hon. Friend said about the resentment that the elected representatives of the Maltese people felt at the invitation to Miss Strickland, who represents nobody in Malta, and who yet was invited as a representative when an attempt was being made by the Colonial Secretary to solve the problems of Malta.

Sir P. Agnew: There are precedents, in conferences to discuss the constitutions of dependencies, for inviting people to attend who do not command the allegiance of any exactly defined political party. I have in mind the India Round Table Conference held here in London in which Mr. Gandhi was invited to be a participant. That was not thought to be wrong. I think, indeed, that he made a contribution. It is not necessary to

command a lot of seats in a legislature to take a useful part in a conference.

Dr. King: If the hon. Gentleman thinks he is making a correct analogy between Miss Strickland, who has only a handful of supporters in Malta in spite of the fact that up to recently she owned the only newspaper which existed there, and Gandhi, who represented the unvoiced aspirations and the unrepresented opinions of almost the whole of the Hindu community of India, I think he is misjudging the position.
I would only say, to return to the point I was making, that I realised as I talked to those Ministers that they were adult politically and politically conscious. They, rightly, refuse to be patronised. They have learned their democracy from us. They resented the presence of someone who cannot get a single seat in the Maltese Parliament—as I am quite certain Archbishop Makarios, and, indeed, all Britain, would resent it if we took to the negotiations which are taking place now one of the League of Empire Loyalists or a member of the Communist Party. Dom Mintoff's Government had begun, in their own way, a programme of social legislation which showed them to be a mature political party entitled to the same respect and recognition that we should ask for a majority party in our own country. I shared that night with them a common enthusiasm for educational advance.
The third matter which I would try to convey is the intense love of freedom of the Maltese people. I had the unusual experience of being present when Mr. Mintoff and his Ministers spoke to a meeting of Maltese in Britain. It was as lively a meeting as Kinglake tells us the Greeks had right through their history in their passion for democracy, and as lively and argumentative as any English political meeting. Every Maltese there claimed to have opinions of his own, and claimed the right to express them, whether or not they agreed with those of Mr. Mintoff and his party. I liked that. And in spite of their differences, they were united in their patriotism as we are. The Maltese are a proud people and they have a great deal to be proud of, but by means of this Bill we are attacking their freedom, their conscience and their pride.
I am puzzled because in the debate hon. Members opposite have admitted during their speeches all the very things which are making us vote against the Bill. We are in a world where internationalism is needed more than ever before but where the force which we know as nationalism is stronger than ever before. We claim the right to it for ourselves. We would resent any interference with British freedom and self-determination, and we must learn that what we demand for ourselves we must be prepared to concede, in the last resort, to any other group of people, no matter how small it may be.
This raises the very difficult problem that those who love freedom and want independence are sometimes prepared to be badly governed by themselves rather than to be well governed by anybody else. When I was in Africa, a great African political leader said to me that many Africans would prefer to be badly governed by Africans than to be well governed by the British. It may be rather painful to us when the British sometimes with entire sincerity of motive, say. "We are doing this for you for your own good" and people respond by saying "Whether it is for our own good or not we wish to govern ourselves". But this is the force which is growing in the world today.
I believe that those hon. Members who do not want Malta to be independent do not want her to be independent for the best of reasons—that Malta has an unviable economy. One of my hon. Friends said to me that we should not be so unkind as to give Malta her independence, because it would be an economic disaster for the people of Malta. What ought to be taking place again and again is economic argument with the freely-elected representatives of the Maltese people. When I spoke to Mr. Mintoff and his friends they were quite convinced that what the Colonial Secretary recently called a Utopia was an achievable one with Malta as an entrepôt between the new nations of the Middle East and Europe. They imagined Malta as a neutral trading bastion in the Mediterranean. It seemed to them to make very good sense.
I believe that the economic picture which they have in their minds is impractical. If they are allowed to pursue it they might very well bring a great deal

of poverty and unhappiness to the people of Malta. But this has to be argued out with them factually in conference—a conference of equals, of one free people arguing with another group entitled to the same political freedom.
I am unhappy tonight because by means of the Bill the Government are taking a backward step, a step away from political equality. In the last resort, it is the Maltese people who must decide their own political destiny. No amount of argument or explanation can take us away from that elementary fact. If at present we propose to govern without their help and to invite into the Government only those whom the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) would inaccurately regard as the Gandhis of Malta—only that tiny minority of Maltese people who were not represented in the last Parliament—we are polarising the difference that exists between us. It is a tragedy that, when there is still much good will on both sides, we are taking a retrograde step which will break down that good will.

8.15 p.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: Sometimes the rules of order are most rigorously applied in the various stages of the passage of a Bill. On Second Reading, we are permitted to roam fairly widely with reference not only to what a Bill contains, but also to proposals which we would prefer to have in it but which are not there. But on Third Reading, especially when there has not been any Amendment in Committee, you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or your colleagues in the Chair, sometimes compel us to adhere most rigidly to what is actually written in the Bill. Happily, we are not under that restriction today, and it is permissible to make a few more observations on the general theme of what we are doing by passing the Bill.
Although, unfortunately, I did not have the chance to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), it appears to me that the main reason why he and his party are opposing the Measure and will vote against it is that they believe that by passing the Bill, by repealing the 1947 Constitution, with its representative institutions, a step backwards is being taken. In other words, a step is being taken further away from those conditions which, when they come.


we shall all be able to recognise—if we can attain them—as a slate of harmony between Britain and Malta and of happiness for the Maltese people in the enjoyment of freedom.
I believe that right hon. and hon. Members opposite sincerely believe that. I take precisely the opposite view. I believe equally sincerely that by passing the Bill we are not prejudicing the achievement of a good settlement for Malta. On the other hand, I believe that when the Bill becomes law that process will be facilitated. If the period which will shortly be entered upon is regarded as nothing else but a breathing space, and if, during that time, wise counsels—and, I suspect, many others as well—are proffered on what the ultimate solution should be, then, at the end of that time, proposals can be brought to the House containing provisions for a new and better and more liberal constitution than the one which existed before. But if we were to ask ourselves searchingly why it was necessary to repeal the 1947 Constitution, surely we have only to reflect upon the happenings of last April to realise that necessity.
The position then was that the party which held the majority of seats in the Legislature, and the head of the Government, Mr. Mintoff, resigned with the whole of the Cabinet. The constitutional processes were then set in train. Dom Mintoff was not willing to reconstitute his Government and re-form it. On the other hand, neither was the leader of the next largest party—the leader, as we might say, of the Opposition, Dr. Borg Olivier. Surely it is true that any constitution which contains representative institutions depends inevitably for its success upon the leaders of the political parties who have seats in it being willing to take the responsibility of office? Otherwise, the constitution cannot, and, indeed, will not, work.

Dr. King: The hon. Gentleman will agree that, when the leader of the majority party had refused to form another Government and when the leader of the Opposition had refused for his party, it meant that the whole of the Parliament was staying out in protest. They were quite willing to take on the whole of the Government, but the Parliament that they existed in was a Parliament with only limited powers, and if the leader of the

majority party in the Maltese Parliament had been offered full Government of Malta he would have taken it tomorrow.

Sir P. Agnew: The 1947 Constitution contained very full powers indeed so far as all the ordinary internal affairs of Malta are concerned.
I share the views of those who formed the Round Table Conference that in any future constitution of Malta the system conveniently known as the diarchy and personified in the existence of an entity known as the Maltese Imperial Government, headed by the Lieut.-Governor, should be swept away. In the common wisdom of all who contribute to a new settlement, something much better must be found, something which is not only more practical in its working, but which has the appearance and the seemliness of embodying more dignity for the Maltese people, who have now—and, so far as one can see, for a very long time will have—inevitably to submit—and I believe that they will submit with good will—to quite a large part of their small island being used for purposes of exterior defence and, indeed, imperial strategy. I believe that they will willingly do that, but, without going into details, I support the need, of which the Round Table Conference spoke in its Report, for better machinery than we have at present to do it. Perhaps the other functions of the Lieut.-Governor could be better discharged by a functionary to be known as the Chief Secretary, or somebody of that kind.
In the broadest way, we look to a constitution which will give the fullest opportunity for Malta to decide what its own future should be. It has been said from both sides of the House that it would be an injustice and a cruelty to inflict absolute independence upon Malta at the present time or in the foreseeable future, because the creation of that status of absolute independence outside the Commonwealth would carry in its train inexorably the cutting off of the aid year by year of millions of pounds which the people of this country as a whole recognise that they ought to give to Malta in an attempt to make it, over the years, but as soon as possible, a viable economy.
Even if Maltese politicians have said hotly that they would rather have absolute independence outside the Common-


wealth and look elsewhere for the assistance that they need, if they can get it, I feel sure that in this time of reflection, when they cannot give legal expression or power to their ideas in any legislature, a more reasonable frame of mind and a calmer atmosphere will develop. At the end of that time I feel sure that an arrangement can be made whereby Malta will have all the dignities of independent status, but yet be inside the Commonwealth and, therefore, qualify for the assistance which the people of this country only desire to have the excuse to give her.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: During the debate on Second Reading, I was able to speak for only a few minutes. It looks as though Third Reading will give me a chance to develop some of the arguments which I made in very concentrated form on Second Reading. I argued then that the real fundamental issue in this Measure is the status of the people of Malta, their resistance to being a subject people, their desire for human equality and their opposition to colonialism. I was delighted tonight to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), speaking from our Front Bench, emphasising that this is the basic issue.
There are two ways in which that desire of the Maltese people for human equality could be recognised. The first was the proposal for integration with this country. That would have placed the people of Malta on an equal basis with the people in this country who elect our Members of Parliament here. When that proposal was made, when our Commission representing all the three parties in the House went to Malta, discussed the proposals with the representatives there and came back and reported in its favour, many in this House rejoiced at that recommendation and at that prospect. By sheer chance I was the first Member of Parliament able to welcome in this assembly the proposal for the integration of Malta with this country.
I regard it as a tragedy that this great imaginative and constructive scheme has not been realised. I shall not claim tonight that all the responsibility for failure rests on this House—some of that responsibility was on the part of Maltese

representatives—but I say emphatically that when the Government had received a recommendation from a comprehensive commission representing all three parties in this House, when it had the declared support of this House itself, it was the duty of the Government in that situation to put that recommendation into operation as soon as possible. So a very great responsibility rests upon the Government, and rests upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that there should have been such delay in accepting a recommendation made by the representatives of all three parties in the House. I believe we lost a tremendous opportunity, I believe we lost something which was not only important for Malta but which might have been a precedent in the integration of other peoples with our Parliament. I think the House has every right to condemn and to censure Her Majesty's Government for having failed to put that great, hopeful idea into operation.
If integration appears to be ruled out at the present time, what is the second alternative by which the people of Malta may realise their sense of human equality? What is the other method by which they can overthrow the sense of human subjection and alien occupation? What other method is there by which they can throw over colonialism? If the possibility of equal integration with this country is rejected, the only alternative is the independence of the Maltese people. Of course, when I use the word independence" I do not rule out independence within the Commonwealth.
Countries in the Commonwealth—India, Ceylon and Ghana—rejoice in their independence. They do not regard their association with Britain and the Commonwealth as a denial of that independence. Mr. Dom Mintoff has made it clear that when he claims independence he does not rule out membership of the Commonwealth in the same way that India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Ghana enjoy it today.
If those are the only alternatives, is it surprising that when the recent constitutional conference met in London, Mr. Dom Mintoff, the leader of the Labour Party, the majority party in the island of Malta, came to that conference and asked for independence? He asked for that independence in 1962, which is still


three years distant. The tempo of progress in Colonial territories today is tremendous. The Nigerians came to a conference in London last year, and they are to have independence in 1960. If independence is to be the alternative to integration for Malta, it was not unreasonable that 1962 should be suggested as the date.
The second reason why the Government should be condemned and censured is that when Mr. Mintoff made the proposal about independence in 1962 the Government refused to have any further discussions with him at the conference in London. They said, "If you are making that demand, we have nothing to say to you. We are not going to enter into any discussions whatsoever."
The demands of the Opposition party in Malta were not far removed from those of Mr. Mintoff. The only difference was that the Opposition party asked definitely that Malta should be made a Dominion within the Commonwealth. The difference between independence in the Commonwealth and the terms which the Opposition party used is very small indeed. It was a profound mistake when Maltese representatives came to London and asked for independence in three years' time, after the scheme of integration with this country had apparently been shelved, that the representatives of Her Majesty's Government should have refused to have any discussions with them regarding constitutional changes.

Sir P. Agnew: Is the hon. Member speaking from knowledge of the processes of the conference? Is he sure that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as head of that conference, refused to allow Mr. Mintoff and his party any longer to attend the conference, or was it that Mr. Mintoff, because he was standing for independence, did not think it worth while to take part any longer in the proceedings of the conference?

Mr. Brockway: I have read all the minutes of the conference and the exchange of letters between Mr. Mintoff and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. One has only to read the minutes of the first meeting of the conference. When Mr. Mintoff made the demand for independence, the Secretary of State said, "If you are making that demand, then there is no basis for discussion whatever." That

first meeting was ended, not by Mr. Mintoff walking out of the conference, but by the Secretary of State walking out. I have read all the minutes in detail and am certainly speaking with knowledge and not with any illusions about the matter.
I go farther. I have said that the Government should be condemned because they declined to continue the discussions. I have read the speech which the Secretary of State made at the conference in which he argued that independence was impossible. We are living at a time, the Secretary of State is presiding over the Colonial Office at a time, when in every part of the world Colonial countries are moving toward independence—African countries, Caribbean countries, and many others.
I will not develop the point now, but there are only two groups of countries which are having difficulties in attaining their independence. One group consists of Colonies of strategic military importance, and the other of Colonies where there are European settler communities with certain privileges, economic, social and political.
It is argued that the Bill is necessary because in April last year the Prime Minister of Malta resigned and the Leader of the Opposition in Malta declined to take the Premiership, and that therefore the Government of Malta could not function. It has been suggested that because the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in Malta refused to form a Government, the alternative was to postpone the Constitution.
That argument entirely overlooks the reason why both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition declined to become responsible for the limited powers which the Government of Malta has. There was a whole series of reasons. There were the difficulties about the dockyard. There was the reduction in the Government contribution by £1 million a year. There was the conflict about the pace at which social services in Malta should be lifted and made equal to those in this country. There was also the conflict between the Prime Minister and Governor of Malta about the control of the police force in the island. The Premier said, "If I as Prime Minister am not to have power over the police


force, I am not prepared to remain Prime Minister."
It was in all those circumstances that the Prime Minister resigned, and it was in similar circumstances that the opposition party declined to take responsibility for government. In these conditions, the argument is not that we should suspend Parliamentary Government in Malta altogether. The logic of that situation is that we should give the people of Malta more democratic rights and more Parliamentary power so that their leaders will not feel it necessary to resign.
In his speech to the Conference in London, a speech largely repeated in the debate here, the Secretary of State urged that it was impossible for Malta to become independent, for economic reasons. He listed the great economic aids which Britain had extended to Malta. I have been present in the House during many discussions on economic aid for Colonial and Commonwealth countries. Those discussions have been remarkable for the unanimity of the view that economic aid should be continued to countries after they cease to be Colonies, when they become independent and remain within the Commonwealth. That has been strongly urged from both sides of the House.
If Britain has given economic aid to Malta in the past, there is no reason why that economic aid should not be maintained for Malta when Malta becomes independent within the Commonwealth, as I am sure she would be prepared to do. I go further than that. I have some questions to put to the Under-Secretary of State about the economic aid which this country has given to Malta. I hope that he will be in a position to reply to them.
One of the major reasons for the breakdown in relations between our Government and the Malta Labour Party and for the resignation of Mr. Dom Mintoff from the Premiership was the reduction by £1 million a year of the financial aid which had been given. Since that time, the Government have had the responsibility of maintaining the social services and educational services in Malta. The estimate by Mr. Mintoff of his expenditure was based upon receiving that £1 million. During this one year, when the Government have been directly responsible for

the administration of Malta, have the social services been cut, has educational expenditure been cut, have the costs of the Government been cut? If they have not been cut, then the £1 million a year which was to be the reduction must have been continued, because Malta has been maintaining the expenditure upon which Mr. Mintoff based his estimates for this year, which included the £1 million which was withdrawn.
Whatever has happened about the £1 million, I am perfectly sure that the step which is being taken tonight to suspend the Constitution will mean that the Government will have to spend much more than the £1 million a year which they have saved. In these coming months, resistance by the Maltese people, even if it is non-violent resistance, will lead to a situation in the Island which will involve much more than that £1 million.
Britain's aid to Malta should not be based merely on the fact that she is a member of the Commonwealth and will, no doubt, remain a member of the Commonwealth. We have an obligation to Malta which is not less than the obligation we owe to any part of the world. If one looks at the history of the last two generations, the part which these little white islands in the Mediterranean have played for Britain and with Britain cannot be compared with what has been done by any other territory or people.
It is not merely a matter of the service which the people of Malta have given in wartime. Between the wars, Britain has utilised the islands for her own naval, military and defence purposes. We have keyed the whole of the islands to our defence, naval and military programmes. When we reach the stage of saying that the islands are no longer so necessary for those purposes, that the naval dockyards are not necessary for us and they can pass to civilian hands, that the island of Malta is not so essential even from the point of view of military transport, even though the N.A.T.O. Mediterranean headquarters remains there, there still rests upon Great Britain an absolute moral obligation, having used the island for generations for our military purposes, to provide the financial aid by which Malta may be transformed and converted to the new civilian purposes upon which its livelihood must depend. To take the view that these people have no right to


their independence because if they are independent they will not be able to exist economically is to overlook that moral obligation which this country has to the people of Malta because of the services which the people of Malta have rendered in the past.
I want to renew, perhaps a little more calmly tonight, a bigger proposal which I made during my brief speech on Second Reading. Malta has not only served this country. Malta has served the whole Commonwealth. Malta has served the whole of the West. Malta has served all those who believed in liberty and democracy. When we come to the point that the economy of Malta must be changed from a military basis to a civilian basis, I suggest that it is not only due to Britain but due to the Commonwealth, due to the West and due to the United States of America, to whom Malta rendered such great service, that we should give her an opportunity to live a new life on a civilian basis. I quite seriously put to the Under-Secretary that approaches should be made to other countries in the Commonwealth, to the West and to the Government of the United States that an international fund should be established which would enable Malta to be built on the necessary new lines of civilian economy.
An hon. Member opposite, in the only part of his speech with which I agreed, emphasised the great economic opportunities which Malta still has in its position in the Mediterranean, where fleets move East and West past that island at the rate of 40 boats a day, and the possibility of that island, near the developing countries of North Africa on the route to the Middle East, becoming a workshop for those territories. Those possibilities are there. I can see that dockyard not merely used for civilian purposes. I can see, under the kind of international fund that I have described, a great trading estates established in the island, similar to the trading estates that we have established in the depressed areas of this country. I believe that if that were done, the people of Malta might have an opportunity to become self-reliant, self-sustained people with an economy of their own.
I ask the Under-Secretary what he proposes at the end of this period under this Measure. When the Constitution is suspended and when the Council is formed

and all representative Maltese decline to take any part in it, what is to be the future of Malta? What is to be the proposal by which the Maltese people are to enjoy freedom.
At this moment a new hope is being awakened for three islands in the Mediterranean who are now claiming their right to freedom. One is Cyprus—and we all pray that the negotiations now proceeding may bring peace and freedom to Cyprus—the second is Malta the Constitution of which is now being destroyed, and the third is the little island of Monaco, where Prince Rainier—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not an island."]—all right, it is a peninsula. It has a little strip of land joining it—is having to withstand the claim of its people to control that island.

Sir K. Pickthorn: What about Gozo?

Mr. Brockway: We do not want Malta to become another Cyprus. If it does not, that will be the consequence not of the policy of the Government but of the fact that the people of Malta are adopting methods of non-violent resistance.
I beg the Government to think of some new approach to the problem of Malta, even at this late hour, and not to proceed with the Bill. Let them agree to withdraw the Bill and in its place have discussion which will enable democratic co-operation to take place.

8.58 p.m.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I hesitated very much to speak, partly because I was not sure that I could think of anything that was in order. Having listened to the debate I hope that it is not unnecessarily controversial if I say that I still do not feel at all sure of what would be in order, and that I feel reasonably confident that I shall not fall into the condemnation of repetition. One other apology I would make and that is that I have neither eaten nor drunk for over six hours, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not speak as politely as I should.
We have been told today, and we have just had a very long speech, all of it on the assumption, which has been more or less implicit in most of the speeches made today and on the Second Reading, that we all know not only which is progress in these matters but that we all attach the same meaning to words like "status"


and "colonialism". I am bound to say I feel it almost impossible to attach any meaning to those words. So far as I can attach meaning to them I am convinced that the more one assumes the importance of those concepts the more one makes absolutely inevitable that the concepts will be maleficent. No person can move through society preoccupied with his status, and having all his friends pitying him and sympathising with him about his preoccupation with status, without going wholly bad.
It seems very difficult to see how one society moving in other societies can do that either. We have been told today by several people that they are still as much as ever in favour of integration and for the same reasons. All that I thought I had better not talk about, but I think it must be in order now for me to say something about it.
Incidentally, I do not know what authority the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) had for telling us the inner mind of Sir Robert Laycock on this matter. I sometimes permitted myself to think I could guess what Sir Robert Laycock was thinking about it and I do not think it was always the same throughout the whole period, but I certainly should not have dared to take it upon myself to announce what Sir Robert Laycock's view was.
The main argument used for integration at the time when, according to the people who still believe in it now, the thing went wrong because of the fault of Her Majesty's Government was that here is a people who want to come nearer to us, who have more affection for us than can be arranged for by anything less than integration. It is very difficult after the argument put just now about the whole thing breaking off for want of £1 million —which I do not altogether accept—to come back to the argument about the overflowing affection upon which integration had to be based.
Another reason why the integration assumption seems to me to be more than questionable is this. We were told today, as we always are told, "Whether you like it or not, the whole tendency now is towards—" something or other, whatever the orator wants to put across. Recently it has continually been nationalism and independence. Those words are largely

used as if they were the same word. The nationalism of Malta—and there is a nationalism in Malta, a nationalism which I think is deeply respectable—perhaps the largest single factor in that nationalism is a particular kind of relationship to religion and to a particularly systematic and authoritarian religion.
One great objection, taken for granted integration as the solution, I always thought, and still think, was that it is really not possible with candour to promise to people who are going to be integrated in a constitutional Parliamentary omnicompetence where 51 per cent. of this House can do anything it likes, that at the moment it is possible to guarantee to the smaller partner coming into the integration that religious establishments shall remain as they were. If we did not guarantee that, the thing certainly would not turn into integration. If we in any way purported to or were in any way to be accused of having deceived any person we would have the worst possible results.
I listened for a long time to the hon. Member for Slough and—oddly enough —Eton (Mr. Brockway). I am sorry that he could not bear me half as long as I bore him because I wanted to explain one or two other things to him. Incidentally, I might explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) that I think he really is mistaken in his explanation of seventeenth century politics in this country. We ought not to go into that at great length.
The major reason, we were told just now, for the breakdown of the integration attempt was the £1 million. I do not think that that was the major reason. If that hurdle had been got over, I do not think that the thing would have come off, for the reason that I have indicated. The main reason was not the £1 million. The major reason was the claim by Mr. Mintoff that he should fix the sum. It was not that he fixed £1 million too high or £2 million too high, but the claim, "I am going to be integrated with you whether you like it or not, and what is more I shall dictate the marriage settlement." It was there that the difficulty arose.
Incidentally, about the alternatives, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, unless my recollection has gone completely wrong, is mistaken about


the Dominion status. I have not looked anything up and I do not wager my mortal soul on this—I will apologise if I am wrong—but for what it is worth my recollection is that both in the questionings and takings of evidence, and so on, in Malta and in Lancaster House here—and the right hon. Member for Llanelly will correct me if I am wrong —it was Mr. Borg Olivier who said that what he wanted was Dominion status and that he was told by everybody at the Round Table Conference and by Mr. Mintoff that that was not on, that the nature of Dominion status was such that it could not be applicable to Malta. I do not absolutely swear to this, but I think I am right that it was agreed by everybody round the Round Table, except Mr. Borg Olivier and his own particular political friends—the rest all agreed—that the Dominion thing simply was not on, and almost all of the arguments of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough depended upon his getting that wrong.
I remember very well examining Mr. Borg Olivier when he was giving evidence in chief and his saying that every people has the right to self-determination. I said, "Every people, however small?" He said, "Yes", and I said, "Malta, for instance?" He said, "Yes, of course". I said, "Gozo?" He said, "Gozo is quite different". It certainly is quite different. Just now, when we were told about Monaco, that brought that little incident back to my mind.
We have been told that on this day of mourning Mintoff had 100 per cent. of the population with him, or at least 70 or 80 per cent. I understand that he had literally no success in Gozo at all, that the people of Gozo did not stay away from work, did not come out, did not put crepe round their windows—did not do any of these things. It is difficult to talk about equality in this matter without seeming either patronising or offensive, heckling or bullying, or the whole lot at once. Of course, all human beings are, in the light of eternity, equal; I have no doubt of it. Of course, any community which is conscious of nationhood is a nation equal with any other community conscious of nationhood, but we must face it that it is a different sort of consciousness when it is a community with a labour force of 80,000, which is

what we are talking about, and no resources at all except its strategic utility to someone else.
I am highly desirous that the Maltese should feel themselves as free and equal, as grandly human, as any people in the world, but I find it no great kindness to try to pretend that there is something we can do, by encouraging tourism or something of that sort, that will create a new sort of prosperity.
Two things have not bean mentioned. One is the Church—I am the only one to have mentioned the Church—and the other is emigration. We have not had a word on emigration from anyone during any part of this discussion, but surely that is a matter of very much greater interest to Maltese than anything else can possibly be. It has been the British connection that has made possible emigration in directions and upon a scale that would otherwise not have been thinkable.
I am quite clear that the appeal, if appeal it is, that has been put to us today not to pass the Bill is mistaken. I am quite clear that some kind of determination to govern, without necessarily those constitutional forms of agreement that would normally be required—something of that sort—has now become absolutely inevitable. I was rather shocked by hon. Members opposite, who very often talk a good deal about people being victimised, not seeming to be aware of the risk of victimisation of a little society like Malta—80,000 in one single union, with almost a single-party State—and the absolute necessity fox some kind of method of keeping the actual police work out of the hands of the day-to-day politicians. That was the thing, as some hon. Members opposite said, that really brought the end of the Mintoff Government.
I agree with everyone who has spoken today in very much regretting the necessity for this Bill. I do not believe that any of those who have suggested alternatives to it have so suggested those alternatives as to make it reasonable to think that the Bill ought not to be passed. Nobody would wish to be in exactly the place we are in now, but that is the place we are in, and I believe that that next step is absolutely indispensable.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but things have been said here which, since they have been said, are better dealt with than left unmentioned. The hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) does not like the situation in which he and the Government find themselves. He therefore asks us to pass this Bill. Surely, it is just not good enough to say, "We are in a mess, and must get out of it", without considering how we have got into the mess. Because in that way we may well find out how best to get out of it.
The really sad thing about what we are being asked to do tonight is that if the Bill is passed we shall be marking an occasion rather than making one; marking an occasion of a very great failure. It is not enough to say, as many people do, to whom this remark about the failure of our Government is made, "Oh, but Dom Mintoff has been impossible." It may very well be. Each party to a matrimonial dispute always considers the other impossible, and from one point of view, of course, that is right: each of them is impossible in his or her own way. However, it does seem to me that here in a house of legislature we have to consider who is responsible, not only in the absolute sense, but responsible to us, and I have no doubt whatever that if that test is applied we have to consider the responsibility of this Government for this Bill.
It does seem to me that at the conference at Lancaster House the opportunity was taken by the Secretary of State to grind the Maltese people under the very thumb which he was asking them to accept as one giving them something. The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head. I am saying how it appears. This looks as though it was a pretext, this walkout by him—because it does look like a walkout. It looks as though the pretext has been taken of Mr. Mintoff's saying he wanted to consider complete independence, when there was not going to be integration. It seems to me that the Secretary of State, having previously come to the conclusion that Dom Mintoff was impossible, was taking that as a pretext for virtually putting an end to the negotiations.
That seems a great tragedy. It would, of course, be a tragedy—at least, some of us think it would be—for the Maltese

people if they were to become independent. But that is their affair. I do not believe that we ought, for strategical or any other reason, to hang on to people's territory if they do not want us to and if we cannot come to a sensible, business arrangement as to the terms on which we might hang on to that territory.
I remember an occasion when in this House there were loud cheers from the party opposite when it was said that the pilots on the Suez Canal were going to withdraw their services. There were hon. Members opposite who by their cheers quite clearly showed that they really believed that that canal could not be managed without British pilots. Is there not rather a danger that we may fall into the same sort of error as that, about the independence of Malta?
We may think that it would be a tragedy for the people of Malta to be independent. Nevertheless, if it is the wish of the people of Malta to be independent, though we may regret it, we should certainly do nothing to stand in its way. Let us seek to persuade them for all we are worth that a better course lies in another direction and that there should be an association with ourselves; but at any rate we have no right to seize the aspiration for independence as a pretext for putting an end to negotiations which otherwise would surely have led in the ordinary, commonsense of affairs, to a sensible settlement.
The greatest tragedy of all, as it seems to me, is that this is marking the end of what did seem like a really promising attempt to bring about the exact opposite of what so many peoples throughout the world are accusing us of being guilty of, namely, some malicious form of colonialism. Here we had a chance to show that we are not the vile colonialists so many accuse us of being, an opportunity to show that we really have generous sentiments, for the idea of integration was born of generosity. I believe it would have been of immense value to us in our dealings with other peoples in the world, if it had been shown that we really were prepared to come down to brass tacks and arrange the formal integration with us of a previously dependent people. That has gone.

Sir G. Nicholson: The hon. and learned Member is miles off the mark. We are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill


and he has not addressed himself yet to what the alternative to it is. He is asking the House to reject the Bill, and surely in those circumstances his task is to show what the alternative is. He has no right to say that the Government were not sincere in their offer of integration.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his lecture. It is not unusual to be lectured by him in the House. It is an experience which many hon. Members have had, and, therefore, I can doubtless bear it tonight. Whose responsibility is it to show an alternative to the Bill if it is not the Government's? It is the Government's responsibility. One of the main reasons why we on this side of the House, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), are justified up to the hilt in asking the House not to accept the Bill is that the Government have not held out any hope of what they propose to do next. I hope that we shall hear something of that from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies tonight. We ought to be told how long the Government think that the state of affairs which they propose to bring about in Malta is to last, and to what it is to lead. What is their idea about the future of the island? Is their policy one of action or of wait and see? In the absence of information on that point, we are completely justified in saying that we shall have not lot or part in what the Government are doing.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is not the House entitled to hear the hon. and learned Member's mature wisdom? Both of us have been Members for a long time, and I know that his wisdom is mature, if nothing else. Are we not entitled to hear what is the alternative to the Bill?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not want to deprive hon. Members opposite of the opportunity of speaking, but I would remind the hon. Member that I have given one very good reason just now. No plan for the future is held out. We are not told what the Government hope to achieve by having this form of government by Governor at present, whereas we on this side of the House have said that we would at once bring Parliament on to the scene again and try to get down to a proper talk round the table. We believe that the logic of the facts is such

that it would lead us even at this time, after the long mishandling of the affair by the present Government, to a sensible accommodation between the two peoples.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Like the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) is considerably more old-fashioned than Vice-President Nixon, because again we have been treated to one of those sneers at British colonialism. It is no good praising the Commonwealth and impugning British colonialism, because one is the product of the other. British colonialism has some faults, because it is a human institution; but it is the preparation for the Commonwealth. New nations of the Commonwealth have come about only because of British colonialism. If we had not had the Imperium we should not have had the Libertas.
I have not spoken on Malta before, but I have tried to acquaint myself with her affairs. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have learned to love the island and admire its people. As one of the observers from this House I watched the holding of the referendum when the Maltese approved integration with the United Kingdom, and I have visited the island since. Malta is a pillar of Christendom. It has been the scene of great deeds. Long before the Second World War, the knights came back from Rhodes and Cyprus to Malta. It is a bastion of the Commonwealth. Though the island's people are very poor, and their livelihood is precarious, it must be said that the standard of living in Malta today is higher than that of any other Mediterranean community; and that is due to one fact only—the British connection.
I supported Her Majesty's Government's policy of integration, which was the verdict of the Round Table Conference. Whereas some of my hon. Friends had their misgivings, I should have been prepared to welcome here the first Members of Parliament from an overseas territory since the loss of Calais. It was a pity that integration was not pushed through with greater momentum. It is a pity that the appearance was given, although it may not have been the fact, that


integration was delayed by financial haggling. It might be said of Malta and of the dealings between this country and another Mediterranean Colony that it is better, when you have a good plan, to stick to it and push it through quickly and with all the energy that you can command.
That is in the past. Since then, we have had the independence Resolution in the Maltese Parliament. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Mintoff, not for the first time, after that resolution had been passed. He told me much of the resentment which the Maltese people felt, and I ventured to tell him that we in this country also had our feelings and that we had been hoping for a union with Malta and now the Maltese Parliament had voted for independence. Recently, there has been a gloss upon independence. We were told it did not mean independence outside the Commonwealth. I am glad, although that was not the impression given at the time.
We are concerned tonight to pass the Bill. Like every right hon. and hon. Member on this side, I shall vote for it with a heavy heart, but the Queen's Government has to be carried on. I hope that two things will be done by Her Majesty's Government; first, that they will press on with all their energy with the measures proposed to advance the economy of the island; and, secondly, that at the earliest possible moment discussions will take place with the leaders of the Maltese people so that constitutional progress may soon be resumed, not only within the framework of the Commonwealth, but eventually, I hope, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Malta.

9.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): The debate today, like the debate on Second Reading, has shown that, whatever else the Round Table Conference achieved or failed to achieve, it has spread into the House a very high degree of understanding of the problems of Malta. I do not think that since the Simon Commission went to India, and instructed the House on the Indian problem, there has been such a comparable concentration of informed interest on one of our overseas

dependencies as there has been on Malta. This is something which we all welcome and which invests our debate this evening with rather more importance than it might otherwise have had.
In the debate on Second Reading we formed a court of inquest on the failure of the integration proposal. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that I put forward then. We do not believe that integration foundered on finance, on the question of the £1 million. Why it foundered is a matter which historians can investigate in years to come. Nothing will induce me to impute wrong motives to those with whom we negotiated in Malta. I pray that the time will come when it will be possible for us to negotiate in the same happy spirit with Maltese representatives as that which prevailed at the time of the Round Table Conference and thereafter.
I reject equally the allegation by the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) that we were lacking in sincerity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies committed himself and the Government wholeheartedly to integration. Not all hon. Members of the House on either side were entirely in support of the plan, but the Government were committed, and any suggestion that we were lacking in sincerity only reflects on those who make it.
The failure of the integration proposal brought us back, to use a colloquialism, to square one. The Round Table Conference had said that independence, and, therefore, Dominion status, was not practical politics and that integration was the alternative course the conference thought practicable. When this was ruled out, clearly no long-term solution was open to us. What was necessary was to find an interim solution, and in the course of this interim either to return to the solution that had been accepted by the Round Table Conference or to evolve a new one.
Again, I leave it to the historians. I will not rehearse tonight all the reasons why the interim proposal failed. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that it was not because we walked out of the conference—we did nothing of the kind—or because we refused what Mr. Mintoff had proposed.


We made it plain that we did not exclude any long-term solution of the Maltese problem. All we said, and the general tenor of the speeches from either side of the House in the Second Reading debate confirm that, was that we could not base our interim proposals on the assumption that Malta would become independent in 1962. It was on this rock, as well as on the minor matters—important though they be—such as the safeguards for the police, that the interim talks foundered.
Then it has been said to us, "Should we not recall the Maltese Assembly?" The difficulty is that neither of the major parties in the Maltese Assembly has been prepared, under the 1947 Constitution, and with the new safeguards which we think necessary for the police, to accept the responsibility of forming a Government. This is not altogether surprising, because even at the time of the Round Table Conference we saw that the diarchy system had broken down, and last autumn's conference bore that out. The events of last year have shown that the 1947 Constitution is no longer workable, not because right hon. and hon. Members of this House think it unworkable, but because the two major parties in Malta are no longer prepared to work it.
That being the case, and having failed to produce an interim constitution—as I submit, not by any fault of ours—we are in a situation where the Government of Malta can only be carried on either under emergency regulations or by a Bill such as the one we bring before the House. Since life in Malta must go on, since there are urgent economic matters to tackle, we bring forward this Bill not because we want to do so, not because we like the idea of a return to direct rule, but because we have reached a stage in our political relations with Malta where there is for the moment no constitutional interim solution and no long-term solution
The logic of this seems to me to be plain. It seems to me to be inherent not only in the position of Her Majesty's Government, but in the position adopted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is why I am bound to say that I deplored, during the Second Reading debate, their decision to divide the House, and I deplore it tonight. I am sure that it is not their intention, but I think—indeed

I am sure—that it is liable to be misinterpreted in Malta. It is liable to make the task of conciliation and of producing a long-term solution more difficult.
Having said that, I salute the right hon. Gentleman on his warning to the Maltese—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Appeal.

Mr. Amery: Yes, appeal against any resort to violence.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough asked me about the aid to Malta. He asked me whether we had, in fact, reduced by £1 million the grant to Malta, as we had told Mr. Mintoff that we intended to do. The figures are as follows. In 1957–58, the grant was £6,077,000; this year, it is £5 million, a reduction of a little more than £1 million. We have made this saving without cutting services or employment. It has been effected by deferring new services, by rather more efficient administration in certain respects and by under-spending on the part of the Malta Public Works Department. I hope that that answers the question.

Mr. Brockway: The Public Works Department is the Department which carries out development, is it not? If the cut has been there, obviously it has been at the expense of the Maltese people.

Mr. Amery: I understand that cuts have not been made in development.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Surely this will have increased unemployment, since a proportion of Maltese people were employed in the services which, I presume, have been cut back.

Mr. Amery: The services have not been cut back. There has been under-spending, which often occurs in departments. Certain new services which Mr. Mintoffs Government had envisaged carrying out were not, in fact, carried out.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) spoke with great warmth of the friendly feeling which he had found in Malta and of the personal friendships which he recognised when he was there exist between many in the political life of Malta and in this House. I strongly support what he said on that score. I hope that nothing will be said to weaken the mutual respect in which the different political leaders in Malta and in this House


have so far held one another. That is why I deplore equally any criticisms of the leader of a small party in Malta who has played a great part in both war and peace in the life of the island.
The hon. Member seemed a little surprised—I hope I am not misinterpreting him—to have discovered the maturity of the Maltese leaders. He told us that they had a great love of freedom and that they were very adult in their approach to politics. That is only to be expected, of course; they were civilised when we were still running about in woad. It would be absurd for us to approach the Maltese problem in the belief that they were not fitted intellectually or morally for a good constitution. We firmly believe that they are. It is simply that certain economic problems have arisen which at the moment block the road forward.

Dr. King: The hon. Gentleman has gone further than I went and has given the Maltese a political tradition even older than ours. That is their case for the kind of political independence which we claim for ourselves.

Mr. Amery: It is very important that the hon. Member should realise, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Llanelly realises, that no one on this side of the House or in Her Majesty's Government thinks that the Maltese are not fitted to have a constitution. That is not the argument at all. The issue is not whether they should have good government from us or bad government from themselves, as the hon. Member tried to suggest. The fact is that we are trying to match certain economic realities with certain political aspirations. If the hon. Member will re-read the very impressive speech made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) during the Second Reading debate he will see that the right hon. Gentleman argued just as strongly as we have argued the economic difficulties which stand in the way of a policy of independence and which have led to the present, temporary, I hope, impasse.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly asked me when the Bill would come into force. The answer is early in April and, therefore, before Admiral Grantham takes over as Governor. The new constitution will include safeguards—and this matter

was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)—for a commission for the police and for a public service commission for the Civil Service. It will be as close as we can devise it in the circumstances to the interim constitution which was offered, but rejected, at the last interim talks—and of which copies are in the Library. I note my hon. Friend's point about the University and the Senate. I am not in a position to reply to him tonight, but I will certainly bear in mind what he said.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what officials would be members of the Advisory Council. No final decision has yet been taken, but it is normal in councils with official representation for the Chief Secretary, as the official responsible for the co-ordination of the machinery of government, to be a member, the Finance Secretary, as principal financial and economic adviser, and the Attorney-General to have seats.
There are no reasons that I can see why that long-established precedent should not be followed, but that is not necessarily the whole representation. At any rate, there would be those three members and I should have thought that there might be others including Maltese serving in the Administration. What about other members of the Advisory Council? The right hon. Gentleman spoke very strongly against including members of the Constitutional Party. I think that he allowed himself to refer to the leader of that party as a "British stooge".

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I put the question again? In the circumstances of Malta, is it proposed to ask the other parties, beyond the two who have said that they will not join the Council, to join? I said that if that were done—and I understand that there is more than one party involved—such a party would be regarded as "stooges" of the British. I did not refer to anyone as a "stooge".

Mr. Amery: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has cleared up the point, because it is a very great mistake to attribute the term "stooge", as has sometimes been done by hon. Members opposite, to the Constitutional Party. That party has a long tradition and I can remember, as a child, hearing of the difficulty which Lord Strickland, when he was Prime Minister, used to give my father


when he was occupying the office which the right hon. Gentleman has also held in his time.
I do not want to make a definite statement tonight about who is to be invited to serve on the Council. This is a matter on which we shall want the Governor's advice. My expectation is that it will probably be non-political in the broad sense of the term. We shall endeavour to see that it represents the main interests of Malta—labour, commerce and the professions and the island of Gozo. It is quite likely that, including Maltese officials, it will have a Maltese majority, and I should have thought that its advice would be of greater significance than is sometimes the case in so-called advisory councils.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how long the situation was to continue and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) said that he hoped that there would not be any drift and that we would not allow this new phase into which we are moving to continue for too long. It is the clear wish of Her Majesty's Government that this period of direct rule should be as short as possible.
There are certain urgent decisions to get through about the economic life of the island and about things like setting up the public service commissions of which I have spoken, but our hope is that the period of direct rule will be very short. Naturally, we also hope that it will give time for new thoughts to form among the political forces in Malta and perhaps for new elements to make their voices heard. We trust that it will be a short period.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what would happen then. There are two tasks before us when we come to end the period of direct rule. In all probability, we shall, first, have to devise an interim constitution. I doubt whether a final solution can be developed until some measure of constitutional freedom is restored to Malta. I may be wrong; it may be that we can jump to a final solution right away, but my expectation is that we should, first, have to devise an interim plan which would recreate the essentials of political life in Malta from which a long-term solution could emerge.
How shall we arrive at this stage? It may be that it can be done by talks with

the political parties, such as we tried to have in London this autumn. That is certainly the easiest way to proceed, but it did not succeed on this occasion so it may not be the most satisfactory way. There is a long tradition in Malta of calling together a National Assembly. Past constitutions in Malta have tended to evolve from a National Assembly. This is a much more elaborate affair, but it may well be that it is a way by which one could arrive at a solution.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about reconvening the Round Table Conference. We certainly do not exclude this, but the right hon. Gentleman will have in mind that the reason the Round Table Conference was called into being, and the reason that my right hon. Friend advocated sharing responsibility between the Government and the two Opposition parties in that particular inquiry into Maltese affairs, was that it was contemplated at that time that there would be —there was, at any rate, the possibility of it, and that is what we were looking into—the integration development which would have led to Maltese coming to this House.
It was because of the interest of this House as a House of Commons in the Maltese evolution that my right hon. Friend first set up the Round Table Conference. Whether it would be an appropriate vehicle for solving the deadlock between the Maltese parties is another question; but, as I say, it is not one which we exclude. In all these matters we shall have to be very largely advised by the Governor, the present Governor, that is, and his successor.
I should like to join the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly in giving our salute to Sir Robert Laycock for the magnificent job that he has done. A gallant soldier in war, he has shown himself a considerable statesman in Malta. Those of us who were on the Round Table Conference, and who had the privilege of being briefed by him, will remember both the objectivity of his judgment and the strength of his advice. Whatever else may be said in this debate or in the House of Commons, it is certainly not his fault if the integration plan did not go through. I would say, further, that if it had not been for his decisive intervention in April last year there might well have been bloodshed in


Malta. In saluting him, we salute his staff, also, who have been through a rather difficult time during these last years.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who were on the Round Table Conference will remember, also, the new Governor, Sir Guy Grantham. He was then the N.A.T.O. Commander in Malta. He knows the island and its people well, and I am bound to say that I came away from my first meeting with him with a feeling of great confidence in him. He is well known in the island. He is intimate with the problems of the dockyard. Of course, he has been chosen on his merits, but the fact that an admiral is going to Malta is, I think, a sign of the Royal Navy's continuing interest in the island.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough spoke today, as did another hon. Member during the Second Reading debate, as if our defence interest in Malta was falling away. This is not so. It is merely that the change in the organisation of our defence forces makes a smaller call on the labour force in Malta than it did in the past. The strategic importance of the island in terms of naval power, and perhaps even more in terms of air power, has not declined. There is another sign of the Admiralty's continuing interest in the island, and that is the release by the Admiralty of Admiral Hubback, in this case to act as general manager of the new company which will run the dockyard in Malta.
I was asked a question the other day by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) and again today on this subject. I want to say a word or two on it. There is a big practical job to be done in Malta following the decision of the Royal Navy not to use the dockyard to the extent that it has used it in the past. Until 1960, the Royal Navy will take up 100 per cent. of the dockyard capacity, and in the years after that, as far ahead as we can foresee, at least 30 per cent. It will still be a very big element in the employment of the dockyard.
The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the complex of the dockyard and the base divides itself itself into two parts. There is the base employing a little under 6,000 people and the dockyard employing very much the same number. The

base will remain a naval base and continue to give steady employment to between 5,500 and 6,000 people.
The problem that we are considering at the moment is the dockyard—the separation of the yard from the base and along with that the development of secondary industries within the dockyard area, and we trust, the extension of the harbour facilities by the creation of a deep water harbour. The question has been asked: by what right have we given the lease of the yard to a commercial company? We would, of course, have preferred to have co-operated in this with an elected Maltese Government, had there been one at the time. We sought to do so with Mr. Mintoff, but we were not successful. The problem was not one which we could allow to drag. Had we allowed it to drag there would have been serious mass unemployment and hunger, and, in spite of the constitutional crisis, we simply could not allow this crisis to drag on.
The questions have been asked: why did we go to Bailey's, and, were others asked? The answer is that others were asked. The Admiralty approached the shipping conference in this country. They had discussions with the consortium of Vickers-Armstrong and Smith's Dockyards. They went out and looked at the problem. The proposal which they put up was not one which we thought satisfactory from the Government's point of view, and that proposal was not proceeded with. There was no other response except that from Bailey's.
The question has been raised: was there a possibility of a foreign interest taking a hand? Mr. Mintoff had talks, at the time of his Government, with certain Scandinavian shipping interests, but those talks were inconclusive. It is our judgment, and we were kept informed of these talks, that it is sheer imagination to think that foreign interests are eager to jump in. We envisage the participation of Maltese interests in the Bailey's operation. It was on my right hon. Friend's persuasion that the Admiralty agreed to release—and they did it rather reluctantly—Admiral Hubback to be managing director of the new company to be formed in Malta.
There is nothing mysterious or sinister about this and it is quite untrue to suggest that we prolonged the constitutional


crisis to get this through. We are going to put a substantial financial stake into the dockyard. Details of all this are still under negotiation. They will be announced probably in April, and the announcement then made will deal with the legal points raised by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) in an earlier debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham said that he hoped that there would be no parsimony from our side. I can give an assurance on that. The sums offered to Malta for the next five-year period may create some feeling in other Colonies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and the hon. Member for Thurrock had a short passage of arms about the results of the day of mourning. It might be of help to the House if I gave them the information that is in our possession on this subject. The day of mourning was on the initiative of the Malta Labour Party. The General Workers' Union was not actively associated with it, and the Nationalist Party was neutral. A directive was given by the Malta Labour Party that the population should stay away from work, that transport should cease, that people should stay indoors and that black crepe should be draped on the houses.
The result was what I can only call a qualified success. Not much black crepe was in evidence. It was a fine day, and the people showed a marked reluctance to stay indoors. There was, indeed, rather a holiday atmosphere. Transport was, on the whole, normal. Some of the shops had closed, but many were open and did fairly brisk business. The Services school closed, because it was pessimistic about the appearance of transport, but the dockyard nautical school seemed to be better informed and, being optimistic about transport, remained open.
The key to the matter was the attitude of the industrial employees and the civil servants. Civil Government staff to the extent of 92 per cent. attended, and Army employees up to 66 per cent. In the naval establishments 10 per cent. of industrial and 96 per cent. of non-industrial staff attended. With the Royal Air Force, the figures were 54 per cent.

of industrial staff and 92 per cent. of non-industrial.
The second round in the demonstration which Mr. Mintoff tried to lead the island into was the Carnival. He gave orders for the boycott of the three-day celebration. The first day was a wash-out, literally, because it was pouring with rain and the celebrations were cancelled. On the second day, there was a good attendance. The third day was Shrove Tuesday, and the attendances were unusually large.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said that the message we were sending to Malta was that we were going back to direct rule. It is not because we want to do it. It is because we see no practical alternative. No right hon. Gentleman from the Front Opposition Bench has suggested one. I do not blame them for not having done so, but I ask them to accept our assurance that in the present situation we cannot see any other way than the one that we are adopting. What the long-term outcome will be it is very hard to say. The right hon. Gentleman said we should return to integration, but we cannot force integration. My own view is that all we can do is to repeat that integration remains a valid basis for discussion.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough said that if integration fell away there was no choice but independence. The objections and difficulties which independence presents on the economic side are enormous and I will not, at this late hour, try to rehearse them. I would only repeat that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough should read again the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He would then see the difficulties of a policy of independence. Indeed, the speeches from both sides of the House in the Second Reading debate constituted a tremendous appeal to Mr. Mintoff not to press on with his policy of independence. I can only trust that the people of Malta will heed that advice.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 220.

Division No. 43.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gammans, Lady
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Aitken, W. T.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Glover, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Godber, J. B.
Marshall, Douglas


Armstrong, C. W.
Goodhart, Philip
Mathew, R.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Gough, C. F. H.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Atkins, H. E.
Gower, H. R.
Mawby, R. L.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Balniel, Lord
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr.R. (Nantwich)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Barber, Anthony
Green, A.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Barlow, Sir John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Barter, John
Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Neave, Airey


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hay, John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bingham, R. M.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborne, C.


Body, R. F.
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Page, R. G.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Holland-Martin, C. J.



Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hope, Lord John
Partridge, E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornby, R. P.
Peel, W. J.


Braine, B. R.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pitman, I. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Howard, John (Test)
Pott, H. P.


Bryan, P.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Profumo, J. D.


Campbell, Sir David
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Ramsden, J. E.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Rawlinson, Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Hyton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Redmayne, M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, D. L. M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kaberry, D.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Corfield, F. V.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Roper, Sir Harold


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kershaw, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kimball, M.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Cunningham, Knox
Lagden, G. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lambton, Viscount
Sharples, R. C.


Dance, J. C. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, William


Davidson, Viscountess
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Leather, E. H. C.



Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


de Ferranti, Basil
Leburn, W. G.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon. N.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Speir, R. M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Longden, Gilbert
Stevens, Geoffrey


Duncan, Sir James
Loveys, Walter H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Storey, S.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Erroll, F. J.
McAdden, S. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Fisher, Nigel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Forrest, G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Teeling, W.


Fort, R.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Temple, John M.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Freeth, Denzil
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)







Thompson, R, (Croydon, S.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone,
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wall, Patrick
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Turner, H. F. L,
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)



Vane, W. M. F.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Webbe, Sir H.
Mr. Legh and


Vickers, Miss Joan
Webster, David
Mr. Edward Wakefield.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hoy, J. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Albu, A. H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hunter, A. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, A. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.


Baird, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, H. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, John


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Janner, B.
Redhead, E. C.


Benson, Sir George
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Beswick, Frank
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Rhodes, H.


Blyton, W. R.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Boardman, H.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bonham Carter, Mark
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Boyd, T. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ledger, R. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lewis, Arthur
Snow, J. W.


Champion, A, J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chapman. W. D.
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chetwynd, G. R.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sparks, J. A.


Cliffe, Michael
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Spriggs, Leslie


Coldrick, W.
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
McInnes, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
McLeavy, Frank



Cullen, Mrs. A.
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Deer, G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, M.
Messer, Sir F.
Thornton, E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian
Timmons, J.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, F.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Moody, A. S.
Wade, D. W.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Warbey, W. N.


Fernyhough, E.
Mort, D. L.
Watkins, T. E.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

Weitzman, D.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moss, R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mulley, F. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Gibson, C. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R,
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt, C. A. B.


Grey, G. F.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Grimond, J.
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hale, Leslie
Owen, W. J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hamilton, W. W.
Paget, R. T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hastings, S.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Winterbottom, Richard


Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parker, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Parkin, B. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Holmes, Horace
Paton, John



Houghton, Douglas
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pentland, N.
Mr. Poperwell and Mr. Pearson.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

POLICE (TRAFFIC OFFICERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. John Baldock: Recently, a good deal of interest has been re-awakened in the idea of having special traffic officers, or police, or wardens, specifically for the job of controlling and dealing with traffic. Far from this being a new idea, it is one that I myself have raised in this House before, but no action appears to have been taken on any of the proposals that have been made in the past, except to create school -crossing wardens.
The proposal to have special traffic officers, or wardens, is now receiving more attention for two reasons. One reason is that the Chief Constable of Nottingham has brought out a plan on these lines, which he is prepared to operate at once, if necessary, and the other is that the public is becoming more and more concerned at the continuing increase in crime—especially crimes of violence, and of a serious nature against the person—and by the increasing amount of traffic congestion.
The idea of having traffic officers, or special traffic police, is a practical step towards dealing with both of these problems, and it is something that could be done at once. There is no doubt that many chief constables are very much aware of the shortage of police for dealing with the serious increase in crime. Over and over again in their reports they say, in effect, that the lessening risk of detection of crimes increases the temptation to commit them, but that owing to traffic duties the number of men on patrol gets less and less.
What does this mean when translated into figures? The Chief Constable of Nottingham has said that no less than 44 per cent. of the available foot patrol strength is employed on traffic duties. That excludes point duty work, I understand, but if that were taken into account it would mean that about half of the available foot strength of the City of Nottingham is employed on traffic duties. That is a very substantial proportion of a city's police force.
In addition to that 50 per cent. of foot strength entirely engaged in traffic duties, the Chief Constable of Nottingham says that hours of the patrol time of every police officer are inevitably spent on traffic offences, so that the total proportion of police time spent on work connected with traffic is very substantial, indeed—considerably more than half.
In Birmingham the police force is 266 men short. Crime is rising year by year, and the Chief Constable says in his report:
It is very doubtful whether any improvement can reasonably be expected without a substantial increase in police.
In Port Talbot the police spend 50 per cent. of their time on traffic duties. In Chelmsford 75 per cent. of the local constables are tied down on traffic problems.
This is all under normal, everyday conditions, but in most towns and cities there are inevitably special occasions which occur more or less frequently, race meetings, football matches, and in London, ceremonial occasions, when very large numbers of police have to be drafted in for traffic work. Some of there are special constables, a force which, unfortunately, is very much below strength, far more so than the regular police, but, even so, taking into account the numbers of special constables who help on these occasions, the proportion of the police force engaged then in purely traffic work must be very great indeed.
It is fairly common knowledge, presumably, to those who are concerned with criminal activities that if policemen are spending their day on traffic duties and on special occasions of this kind they are unlikely to be on watch at night as well. I think this is not the time or situation for complacency on these questions. The public are seriously worried, with every justification, about the increase in congestion of traffic, and they want to see some action quickly.
The case for traffic officers to relieve the hard-pressed police forces and to make a real effort to reduce crime seems to me to be unquestionably made. I think the only questions which remain are what should their duties be and what should their powers be? I think there can be no disputing that they should be brought into existence. Whatever their duties and powers should be I certainly think they


should control parking, and I myself believe that they could very well contend with point duty, if the right type of men were recruited.
It has been suggested on several occasions, I think I have done so myself before, that this would be a very good opening for ex-N.C.O.s from the Services. These men would have the right kind of experience of dealing with people. They would be steady and reliable and of good character. They are people, some of them, at least, who have had very considerable experience in handling traffic and marshalling large numbers of vehicles. An ex-sergeant of the Royal Engineers wrote to me who had had very considerable experience of that kind. They are men to whom, it is generally agreed, the country owes a debt of reinstatement when they have finished their Service careers, but yet many of them are men it is hard to place in industrial and other jobs because they have no trade skill or experience. This would be an excellent opening for such people and I think they would do the job extremely well. I myself believe that men of this calibre could handle traffic work, including point duty, which is at present done by new recruits into the ordinary police force. They would have a vast amount of experience behind them.
Whether they should have the power of arrest, I do not know, but I can say that in Paris, out of 14,000 police, 3,000 do nothing but traffic work. They are specially recruited into traffic companies for that purpose. It may be worth studying how that works in Paris. This seems to be a reasonable way of arranging the duties.
The whole community would benefit from action of this kind, except criminals, and no one more so than the shopkeepers, who suffer particularly from both sides of this trouble, both from the increased traffic congestion and increased crime. They are particularly vulnerable to thefts and violence, and their trade declines because cars are unable to get near them if they live in the centres of towns and cities. Cars are not allowed to park in front of their doors. This is something which probably could be overcome if proper traffic wardens or officers were available to regulate parking in the streets.
These steps to introduce traffic officers would require money and the willingness

to experiment and break new ground, but I believe that this would not deter my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has shown great willingness to be associated with reform in other branches of his Department. I hope to see the Nottingham scheme enabled to go ahead and be put into operation as a pilot scheme for the provinces, and the Home Secretary putting into operation a similar pilot scheme for one of the Central London police districts. I believe that the public demand action of this kind for the serious reasons which I have stated and that they do not want to see further delay over a scheme which they believe can bring immediate relief to the problem.

10.12 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I agree to a great extent with what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) has said. I am sure that the police, a highly trained body, are wasting an immense amount of time in dealing with traffic problems. I go further and say that if they stopped dealing with some of these problems the traffic would move faster than it does at present. At some of the traffic spots one often sees traffic moving satisfactorily until the police come along and hold up their hands and stop vehicles going round a roundabout. When one is getting away from Epsom racecourse on Derby Day one finds that the traffic flows beautifully until about six o'clock in the evening when policemen are put on duty. Almost everything then comes to a standstill. All the traffic entering the main road is held up for traffic going the other way, whereas if motorists were left to their own devices the traffic would revolve round the roundabouts and there would be no trouble at all.
I do not think my hon. Friend has the real answer, which is to clear the roads of all stationary vehicles. Wherever one goes in London one sees expensive roads, on which the country has spent a mint of money in building and maintenance, completely cluttered up with vehicles parked on both sides. Everybody recognises that as an evil, but no one does anything about it. Why do the Government not insist upon the local authority doing something to get these stationary vehicles off the roads? That is far more important than having more traffic cops and incurring still more expenditure. If these vehicles


were removed from the roads things would be made far easier for everybody.
There is any amount of scope for the provision of parking spaces on bombed sites. There are even garages which are not fully occupied because people are allowed to park on the road. They are permitted to park on both sides of narrow roads which were meant not for parking but to enable traffic to be kept moving. The Minister of Transport can build most excellent and expensive roads between Liverpool and Manchester, and Manchester and London, but that is no good at all, because when one gets to the city there is a complete bottleneck as a result of both sides of roads being occupied by parked vehicles. If the Government would give local authorities the necessary grants they would erect garages and remove these stationary vehicles from the roads. If they do not do it today, they will have to do it in five years' time. The sooner the Government either give a grant to local authorities or tell them to get on with the job, the better. Then these extra traffic cops, who will in the end only hinder traffic and stop it getting through quickly, will not be needed.

10.25 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I cannot share the views of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) about the results of police intervention when they are trying to ease the flow of traffic, but I am glad of my hon. and gallant Friend's conversion to the view that cars which cause obstruction should be freely removed.
The whole House sympathises with the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) to help the police to combat the crime wave and to ease the flow of traffic. The possibility of relieving the police of some of their traffic duties has been suggested in different ways by many different people in recent years. When I was a back bencher some four years ago I had a shot at it. Indeed, I voiced some of the opinions that my hon. Friend has voiced this evening. I can assure him that, like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I am not unsympathetic to some of the points which he has put forward.
In considering this matter, we should make an important and clear distinction between control of parking and control of moving traffic. In case there is anybody who thinks that a corps of civilian traffic wardens in this country could successfully cope with police duties regarding mobile traffic, I must remind hon. Members of some of the difficulties which arise. We live in a most highly mechanised society, and even criminals use motor cars to a great extent. The police are becoming increasingly mechanised. Their motor patrols and motor bicycle patrols are capable of dealing, not only with dangerous drivers, but with criminals. They deal with criminals in two ways. First, if the criminals are using cars, it is necessary for the police in their cars to get after them as quickly as possible. Secondly, even if the criminals are not using cars, mobile police patrols, by being put on the spot by means of wireless, can track down the criminals very quickly.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will therefore realise that there is an inseparable link between the traffic duties and the motorised existence of the police, on the one hand, and crime prevention and general enforcement of the law in a motorised society, on the other hand. Those considerations make it extremely difficult to separate the duties of the police with regard to mobile traffic from their more static duties.
Without the authority which the police command, there cannot be effective control of moving traffic. In our opinion, it would be a mistake to establish a separate corps of men, possessing lower qualifications, for dealing with such an important part of police work as the duties which arise from dangerous driving and keeping traffic on the move.
Those are some of the many reasons which we must keep in mind when making the important distinction between mere control of parking and the more difficult task of supervising moving traffic, which is such a vital part of police work in modern society. I concede to my hon. and gallant Friend that there would be less objection to the use of special traffic wardens to control parking, whether in car parks off the street or parking on the street.
In a sense we already have some special traffic wardens, namely, the parking


meter attendants who are an essential part of the parking meter schemes which are increasingly being set under the Road Traffic Act, 1956. But I must stress that these parking meter attendants are employed by local authorities and not by the police. However, when the parking meter schemes are more widely extended it may be found practicable and desirable to extend also the range of duties of the parking meter attendants, and so give some relief to the police in this way.
I now turn to the proposals which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned and which have been put forward by the Chief Constable of Nottingham. These proposals involve the setting up of a corps of traffic wardens to deal with parking offences—not to deal with all the traffic duties which fall upon the police but with parking offences—and those wardens would, he suggests, be under the control of the police.
Home Office officials have already had informal discussions with representatives of the Nottingham Watch Committee and with the Chief Constable of Nottingham, but so far we have had no formal request from the Watch Committee for the Home Secretary's approval of such a scheme. My right hon. Friend's approval would, of course, be necessary, that is to say, if a 50 per cent. grant were to be paid on the expenditure to be incurred.
I can tell the House that if a satisfactory scheme could be worked out, my right hon. Friend would welcome an experiment of the kind considered in Nottingham. Under the scheme put forward by the Chief Constable of Nottingham, the traffic wardens would, as I say, be under police supervision, but they would not have—and this is an important point to note—police powers of prosecution or direction. They would help motorists to find parking space, and they would do their best to see that restrictions were complied with and, where necessary, they would report offenders to the police. But it would be for the police to carry out the duties for which they are specially trained in charging offenders and bringing them before the courts.
If we had an experiment of this kind it would undoubtedly provide valuable evidence of the contribution which could be made by a separate force of civilian traffic wardens in helping the police in the task of keeping the streets clear of

stationary vehicles, which is so dear to the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West, so that other traffic can be kept on the move.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has raised this matter tonight, and it will be interesting to see what further developments arise from our discussion. I must correct one slight misapprehension expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West when he said that the Home Secretary should get local police authorities to get on with schemes of this kind. My right hon. Friend has no power to compel local police authorities in that way, and, indeed, I think I should tell my hon. and gallant Friend in all candour that not all chief officers of police and police authorities are necessarily in favour of even a limited proposal of the kind put forward by the Chief Constable of Nottingham.
My hon. Friend was referring to specific cases—of which I had not had notice, so I cannot check the details of the individual instances which he gave—of certain police authorities where the time of the police is being exceptionally taken up with traffic duties, but I think it would be helpful in the minute or two which remain to take a somewhat broader view of this question and to remind the House of the assurance which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave in the debate on the Address on 31st October when he pointed out that so far as the evidence at his command indicated the position was not quite so alarming as it is sometimes made out to be and that he was satisfied that, broadly speaking, the police were not wasting their time on traffic duties.
As to the strength of the police, the position varies a good deal in the country. The general position is that with hardly an exception the county forces are well up to strength, and there is no great recruiting problem in the smaller boroughs, but the difficulty is in the large cities and particularly in the Metropolitan Police District, where the strength is 15 per cent. below the authorised establishment.
On the other hand, it is reassuring to note that there are now altogether, taking England and Wales as a whole, 5,000 more policemen than there were four


years ago. What is more, although the establishments have been increased in the last four years, instead of being 10,000 below establishment as the police were in 1955, they were 6,700 below establishment altogether on 31st December last. As I have pointed out already, the greatest shortages occur in the Metropolitan Police District and in the large cities.
So far as the Metropolis is concerned—I think both my hon. Friends were particularly anxious about the position in the Metropolis—my right hon. Friend is keeping in close touch with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation about this matter. Under the Road Traffic Act it is for the local authorities to make proposals for the parking meter schemes. As I say, those schemes are building up,

and eventually it will be possible to take better stock of the position than we can do tonight with regard to the better arrangement of the parking of cars in London, and it will be possible also when there are more schemes under way to take stock of the contribution which the parking meter attendants, as special traffic wardens—which is, in effect, what they are although they are not under the police—can make in helping the police in performing their duties with regard to parked vehicles.
As I say, we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough for having raised this matter, and we shall take good note of what he has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.